Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

New Clause 31

Statutory overcrowding: definition of overcrowding
‘For section 324 of the Housing Act 1985 there is substituted—
“324 Definition of overcrowding
(1) A dwelling is overcrowded for the purposes of this Part when the number of persons sleeping in the dwelling is such as to contravene—
(a) the standard specified in section 325 (‘the bedroom standard’), or
(b) the standard specified in section 326 (‘the space standard’).”.’.—[Lyn Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 32—Statutory overcrowding: bedroom standard
‘For section 325 of the Housing Act 1985 there is substituted—
“325 The bedroom standard
(1) The bedroom standard is contravened when the number of bedrooms available to the occupiers of a dwelling is less than the number of bedrooms allocated to them in aggregate in accordance with the formula set out below in subsection (4).
(2) No account shall be taken for the purposes of the bedroom standard of a room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.
(3) A room is available as a bedroom if it is of a type normally used in the locality as a bedroom.
(4) For the purposes of the bedroom standard a separate bedroom shall be allocated to the following persons:—
(i) a person living together with another as husband and wife (whether that other person is of the same sex or the opposite sex);
(ii) a person aged 21 years or more;
(iii) two persons of the same sex aged 10 years to 20 years;
(iv) two persons (whether of the same sex or not) aged less than 10 years;
(v) two persons of the same sex where one person is aged between 10 years and 20 years and the other is aged less than 10 years;
(vi) any person aged 21 years in any case where he or she cannot be paired with another occupier of the dwelling so as to fall within (iii), (iv) or (v) above.”.’.
New clause 33—Statutory overcrowding: space standard
‘For section 326 of the Housing Act 1985 there is substituted—
“326 The space standard
(1) The space standard is contravened when the number of persons sleeping in a dwelling is in excess of the permitted number, having regard to the floor area of the rooms of the dwelling available as bedrooms.
(2) For this purpose—
(a) a child under the age of five shall be reckoned as half a unit and a person aged five or over shall be reckoned as one unit, and
(b) a room is available as a bedroom if it is of a type normally used in the locality as a bedroom.
(3) The permitted number of persons in relation to a dwelling is the aggregate for all such rooms in the dwelling of the numbers specified in column 2 of the Table set out below in relation to each room of the floor area specified in column 1.
No account shall be taken for the purposes of the space standard of a room having a floor area of less than 50 square feet.

Floor area of room

Number of persons
110 sq. ft. or more
2
90 sq. ft. or more but less than 110 sq. ft.
1.5
70 sq. ft. or more but less than 90 sq. ft.
1
50 sq. ft. or more but less than 70 sq. ft.
0.5
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the manner in which the floor area of a room is to be ascertained for the purposes of this section; and the regulations may provide for the exclusion from computation, or the bringing into computation at a reduced figure, of floor space in a part of the room which is of less than a specified height not exceeding eight feet.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) A certificate of the local housing authority stating the number and floor areas of the rooms in a dwelling, and that the floor areas have been ascertained in the prescribed manner, is prima facie evidence for the purposes of legal proceedings of the facts stated in it.”.’.

Iain Wright: Welcome back, Mr. Gale, and good afternoon. You are certainly putting in the hours today. I hope that you are appropriately remunerated for it.
Let us move on. I was discussing larger homes, and there is an interesting and important point to be made about them. Before I was interrupted by the end of the morning sitting, I was about to say that the Housing Corporation is currently considering bids for its 2008-11 affordable housing programme. We expect that at least 25 per cent. of the programme will be for larger family homes, and in London, which is the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, it will higher, at 42 per cent.
We discussed having a higher number of larger homes, but it is also important that we make the best use of existing stock. In the shorter term, there is considerable scope for making better use of all the available stock in order to tackle overcrowding. We have supported pilot projects in London to demonstrate and test out different approaches, and have produced an action plan for expanding those projects to 38 pathfinder areas to test out the costs and impacts. The areas will be in all London boroughs, Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester, Liverpool and Manchester.
We want to ensure that good practice and innovative approaches are supported and advanced. To date, we have invested more than £35 million in pilot schemes in London. They have started to develop successful and effective ways of tackling this problem in the capital, where, as my hon. Friend knows, the pressures are particularly acute. We have used lessons from the pilots to develop our action plan, which was published last month. It sets out several ways in which social housing providers, whether local authorities or registered social landlords, can manage their existing stock in innovative and proactive ways to address overcrowding.
We are investing a further £15 million over the next three years, starting with the 38 pathfinder areas. Each pathfinder has been allocated £100,000 to develop a strategy based on good practice and innovation for tackling overcrowding. The pathfinders will operate from April this year and will be expected to use a standard similar to that proposed by my hon. Friend and others in new clause 32. We expect the pathfinders to adopt the bedroom standard as the minimum level of assessing overcrowding in their areas, and to build on the policies that have been most successful in the pilots to develop a strategy to tackle overcrowding.
That change will be in place and effective earlier than any legislative process would allow. I know that my hon. Friend is keen on the timetabling for legislation. I am happy to give way if she wishes to intervene, but before I do, I would point out that trying to change legislation is a fairly lengthy process. We are committed to doing so, and I have already mentioned the scope for putting the standard in secondary legislation, but the pilot areas will bring things forward much more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Lyn Brown: My hon. Friend has said that the current definition of overcrowding is archaic and inappropriate, that we do not need primary legislation and that we can use secondary legislation to get what we require by way of a bedroom standard on the books. I also heard him say that he will look at using pathfinders to roll out the standard. Pathfinders are often wonderful in the areas that they cover, but they are not so wonderful in the areas that they do not cover.
I ask the Minister, first, whether there will be a promise of secondary legislation to change the definition of overcrowding for the whole of the country, and secondly, what he believes the time scale for that will be.

Iain Wright: On my hon. Friend’s first question, yes, I can commit to secondary legislation to change the overcrowding standard. I have committed to that, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing.
On the second point, that is a difficult trick. We need to look at the matter closely. As I said, we must consider the findings from the pathfinder areas. I am keen to use the pathfinder schemes to develop robust and analytical data on costs and to ensure that what we do is evidence-based. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham will not agree with that, but it is important to use the evidence from the pathfinders on things such as cost and impact to devise a phased approach to altering the national statutory standard.

Lyn Brown: My hon. Friend is, to a certain extent, right. We need evidence on which to base the cost and to plan, but we are at the stage where we know what the problem is and it needs to be solved, so I want to push him on a timetable. A best guess at a timetable would suit me, if that is all he can provide.

Iain Wright: It is tempting to respond to my hon. Friend, especially when she seems to have a gun to my head. If she will forgive me, however, I want to examine the information from pathfinders, but I stress to her and reaffirm our commitment to change the overcrowding standard, which as I have said, is completely and utterly out of date. I want to do so as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the importance of ensuring that we have a good mapping exercise about where overcrowding and undercrowding occur, and a cost and impact analysis. I hate to disappoint her, but I am afraid that I shall have to. On the overall philosophical and policy argument about changing the provision, however, we are absolutely committed to doing so.

Lyn Brown: When will the pathfinder findings be in front of us? What is the earliest point at which we can assume to see some action by the Government? I love the Minister’s principles, I think that they are cool, but I really want some action.

Iain Wright: It is a long, long time since I have been called cool. The pathfinders exercise will start in April, and on a future timetable, I certainly see something coming on board—as I say, I do not want to commit myself too much and box myself in—by around about 2009. I know that that will be difficult and problematic for my hon. Friend, but the pilot areas that we are introducing, and the measures to ensure that they adopt the modernised bedroom standard, are important. We are moving forward faster than the legislative process would allow, so I hope that she can take some reassurance from that point.
We have talked strongly about overcrowding, and all the estimates so far show that about 228,000 overcrowded households live in social housing, but the reverse is that we estimate there to be about 445,000 under-occupiers. Under-occupation is measured as two bedrooms or more above the bedroom standard. We are therefore encouraging local authorities to build on existing under-occupation schemes, first by knowing who their under-occupiers are, and then by developing bespoke support packages to help those tenants—especially the elderly—who seek a move to a smaller property.
We know from research that social tenants face psychological and practical barriers to moving—older people especially so. If tailored support can be provided, for example, by taking downsizing tenants to visit their proposed new area, by providing help with the move itself, and by dealing with the utility companies, people could be persuaded to move. This is not a question of coercion; it is a question of helping as much as possible with any barriers to moving from a property that might not be suitable for somebody’s current needs.

Margaret Moran: I commend my hon. Friend, but does he understand that several such schemes have been in operation since the 1980s? Indeed, when I was the chair of housing in Lewisham, and subsequently leader, we undertook hand-holding and provided financial incentives to the elderly to move to smaller accommodation. Their preference was for two-bedroom accommodation, not one, which therefore caused a further shortage of family accommodation. The problem is not easily solved.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will see the same thing that I see in my surgeries, when somebody would like to move, but they say, “I do get the grandkids on a weekend, so I would like a second bedroom in order to accommodate them.” It facilitates family cohesion, which is an important point that we must address.
On my hon. Friend’s point about Lewisham, some evidence that we have seen suggests a successful approach in areas of London that have piloted the initiative, and I am keen to build on that. To support that approach, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing has already announced our intention to consult on a new reasonable preference category that is used in housing allocation to ensure that all authorities give more priority to under-occupiers who may wish to move house. That will ensure that all local authorities give some priority to those who wish to downsize. That is a good customer service for tenants who might wish to move closer to families for support, as we have mentioned, or even to reduce their fuel or council tax bills.
It is also important that authorities and registered social landlords make the most of all lets that become available by adopting a managed, chain lettings approach. In that way, a three-bedroom property freed up by moving an under-occupier can accommodate an overcrowded family, while their two-bedroom property can accommodate a family in temporary accommodation, thus tackling both overcrowding and reducing temporary accommodation. That is an important approach in managing and securing the best use of existing stock.
A further London pilot has been successful in securing accommodation in the private sector for overcrowded households, with a guaranteed move back into the social sector after a specified period, which is an important point to stress. That is an innovative scheme that makes the best use of stock available while allowing a household to move back into the social housing sector eventually. From April, the introduction of the local housing allowance will give private renters on lower incomes greater choice and flexibility in accessing more suitably sized homes in the private sector.
Wider implementation of the schemes that I have mentioned, particularly those that have been piloted in London, will have an immediate affect on securing better accommodation for overcrowded households. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham is impatient to speak—she is a very impatient lady and I do not want to cross her too much.
However, I think that those innovative points will have an immediate effect and also provide the crucial evidence that we need on the cost and impact of updating the overcrowding standard by secondary legislation. Once we have that evidence, we will be able to devise a phased and manageable move to a new national standard with authorities well positioned to manage a new definition positively and proactively. I do not want to box myself in, but I hope that that will be in 2009.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that we are committed to ensuring that families living in overcrowded conditions have the right advice and support from their local housing providers to enable them to secure more suitably sized accommodation. I am not complacent and want the Committee to recognise that. I accept and fully agree with the sentiment of the amendments tabled by hon. Members, and particularly the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham.
I can confirm that the Government are committed to changing the statutory overcrowding standards, but resist the new clause at this time for a number of reasons. First, we have already had powers to amend the definition of overcrowding by regulation. Secondly, we have already given a clear commitment to modernising the standard. Thirdly, we have published an action plan that will go a long way towards tackling the problem on the ground. Finally, it would be untimely to introduce a new standard without the important evidence on the cost or impact of a change for local authorities.
This has been an important debate for a range of hon. Members across the country, but especially those in London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, despite her impatience, has been reassured by what I have said and, on that basis, I hope that she will not press her new clause.

Lyn Brown: May I say how grateful I am to the Minister for coming such a long way and giving me the date of 2009, to which I promise I will hold him? With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 59

Protection from eviction
‘(1) In the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (c. 43), after section 3(3), insert the following—
“(4) In this section premises shall be treated as let as a dwelling, or occupied as a dwelling, if the occupier is for the time being residing there, except that B & B accommodation and hostel accommodation shall not be regarded as a dwelling.
(5) In subsection (4), “B & B accommodation” has the same meaning as in the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and “hostel” has the same meaning as in section 622 of the Housing Act 1985”.
(2) In the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, after section 3A(9), insert the following—
“(10) Where a person lawfully occupies any residential premises under an excluded tenancy or excluded licence, he shall not be evicted from such premises except following the expiry of a reasonable period of notice.
(11) For the avoidance of doubt, an excluded tenant or excluded licensee shall not be compelled to leave accommodation by the landlord or the landlord’s agents following the expiry of a reasonable period of notice while he is physically present within those premises.
(12) For the purposes of subsections (10) and (11) above, a licence of accommodation in a B & B or hostel shall be treated as an excluded licence.”.’.—[Mr. Love.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Love: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 59 would amend the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to give the most basic protection from eviction for some of the most vulnerable occupiers of certain types of property. To expand on that, the 1977 Act provides various types of protection to some occupiers by giving them the right to remain in that accommodation until they receive a 28-day notice to quit. It also provides some protection in that the landlord has to obtain a court order for eviction. Of course, not all occupiers have those rights. There is a group of excluded occupiers who do not have the benefits of minimal rights who are not entitled to a formal notice or a court order. The excluded groups include not only occupiers but people living in hotels and hostels, homeless people living in temporary accommodation provided by the local authority, and homeless people living in self-contained accommodation.
The options for those excluded occupiers are rather bleak. Although they are meant to have some protection in common law, in reality they have virtually nowhere to turn when evicted. Most of those who want access to the private rented sector will have to raise a deposit, and they may have to provide rent in advance. If they have to apply to the social fund, we all know that there can be real difficulties with its administration, and even then they may not get a loan once a decision has been made.
Many will have to turn to the local authority for a rent deposit, and although we are seeing a significant improvement in the coverage of rent deposit schemes, it is still the case, in practical terms, that many people are refused rent deposits. People who have children may then have to apply to the local social services, under the Children Act 1948, but threats are sometimes made to people in those circumstances that the children will be taken into care, often scaring the parents off from approaching the local authority.
The new clause would first extend the groups covered, and those groups will therefore be spared some of the hardship that ensues from being evicted in very short order. As I say, they often find it difficult to obtain suitable alternative accommodation. We want to bring self-contained temporary accommodation within the ambit of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.
Secondly, I think everyone understands that, for people in bed-and-breakfast, hotel or hostel accommodation, it is not practical to give them entitlement to a court order before eviction. Currently, the common law suggests that they should be given a reasonable period of notice. We know that that is not happening for many people up and down the country. We want to bring that within the ambit of the Bill, so that people in such circumstances will at least have a strengthened possibility of receiving a reasonable period of notice before they are evicted.
Of course, “reasonable” has different definitions in various circumstances. For example, there may be occasions when someone living in a hostel is being very difficult, and the reasonable test would be rather shorter than for someone in real difficulty. I hope the Minister will respond sympathetically, but the essence is to reach out to some of the most vulnerable people. They often do not understand the situation that they are in and find that they may have made wrong decisions along the way, and as a consequence will eventually be evicted. The hope is that by extending some legal rights to them, we will give them the opportunity to find alternative accommodation and to have a little more balance in their lives.

Lembit Öpik: I am a little confused by one element. The proposed new subsection (11) states:
“For the avoidance of doubt, an excluded tenant or excluded licensee shall not be compelled to leave accommodation”—
and so on. It seems to me that that means that an excluded tenant or an excluded licensee can simply squat in the premises and never be compelled to leave. Perhaps I misunderstand the provision.

Andrew Love: I do not think that that is the legal implication. Yes, for excluded tenants or licensees we clearly want to extend the right to remain until they have received a period of notice. However, I do not think that we would extend to them the right to squat in the property for good, as has been suggested.
The reality is that the law is very firmly in favour of the landlord’s right to take their property back into ownership. I do not think that this proposal would upset that in any way other than in the two marginal ways that I have suggested: to provide that people who are in local authority self-contained accommodation have greater rights and, perhaps just as importantly, that people who do not have the right to hostel accommodation should at least be given a period of notice. I commend the new clause to the Minister and ask that he looks on it sympathetically. It would go a long way towards helping people in very difficult circumstances.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I know that the Committee needs to make progress so I will be extremely brief. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton for tabling the new clause. It enables us to focus on this very vulnerable group of people who can find themselves in a situation where they experience a lot of panic and hardship in being evicted from temporary accommodation without being able to find suitable alternative accommodation and without being given time to do so.
The new clause would bring self-contained temporary accommodation within the ambit of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. It would give the evicted person more breathing space to explore possibilities of finding alternative accommodation. It seems like a very reasonable and necessary protection for this vulnerable group. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Iain Wright: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton has said on this issue. As he has mentioned, the principal purpose of the new clause is to extend the protection afforded to people who have been considered under the homelessness legislation, part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, and have been provided with temporary accommodation, but in respect of whom the local authority has no further statutory obligation. That could be because they do not have a priority need for accommodation or because they have brought homelessness upon themselves.
Under the current homelessness legislation, if a local housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant is homeless or is likely to become homeless within 28 days, it must make inquiries to satisfy itself whether any duty is owed under part 7 of the 1996 Act. Key factors would be whether the person is actually homeless, whether their homelessness is through no fault of their own, and whether they have a priority need for accommodation. Those inquiries can take time, but in cases where the authority has reason to believe that the applicant may be homeless and may have a priority need, it has an immediate duty under section 188(1) of the 1996 Act to secure accommodation until their inquiries are completed. At that point, in some cases the authority might find that it has no further duty to secure accommodation, for example, because the applicant does not have priority need. Subject to reasonable notice being given, the authority can end the provision of accommodation.
In other cases, the authority might find that it owes the duty under section 190(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, which is owed to applicants who have a priority need, but have made themselves homeless intentionally. The authority must secure accommodation, but for only a limited period, to provide the applicant with a reasonable opportunity to secure accommodation for him or herself. At that point, no further obligation will be owed and the authority needs to be in a position to end the provision of accommodation, subject to reasonable notice being given.
Although I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friends have said, the Court of Appeal has ruled that temporary accommodation made available in these circumstances does not benefit from the protection provided by section 3(1) of the 1977 Act. In my view, that position is correct in policy terms, and to reverse it could jeopardise local authorities’ practical operation of their homelessness provisions. Because of that, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to extend section 3 of the 1977 Act to people who have been provided with temporary accommodation under homelessness legislation, in circumstances in which the local authority’s obligation—this is the crucial point—is specifically limited to a short-term period.

Andrew Love: I am listening to carefully to my hon. Friend. There is clearly a balance to be struck: a local authority needs to gain the accommodation that is being made available and does not want to delay the process any more than necessary, but the families involved are often the most vulnerable, moving from pillar to post and perhaps not receiving the best possible advice. Is there no way in which we can negotiate at least some additional time to give them the opportunity to make arrangements for the future, rather than leave them in limbo?

Iain Wright: Again, I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but I suggest that if families are being moved from pillar to post and there are concerns about their cases, they will already be captured in the priority need for accommodation. I hope that the local authority would see it in that way.
On the basis that I have set out—the local authority’s obligations, and the short-term periods—I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.

Andrew Love: I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s comments. Often people find themselves subject to an intentionality decision, or they have refused the first offer of accommodation—I have seen many cases of that nature—and the local authority therefore decides that it has no further responsibility to them. They may well have taken their decision for good reasons, but not fully understanding the implications. People often find themselves being evicted quickly, which comes as a complete shock and, because of their limited choice, creates great difficulties for them.
I hope that, after reflecting on that, the Minister will consider ways to ease the real housing difficulties of many vulnerable families without allowing people to effectively squat in a property, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire mentioned. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 61

Domestic violence
‘(1) The Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (d) of section 189(i) (Priority need for accommodation) insert—
“(e) A person without dependant children who has been subject to domestic violence or is at risk of such violence, or if he or she returns home is at risk of domestic violence.”.’.—[Mr. Love.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Love: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a probing new clause, and would amend the Housing Act 1996 to include a new section allowing a person without dependent children who has been subject to or is at risk of domestic violence, including if he or she were to return home, to have priority need.
Domestic violence currently accounts for 16 per cent. of all violent crime in this country and is estimated to cost in the region of £23 billion a year. In the latest year for which figures have been taken, more than 100 women and 30 men lost their lives as a result of domestic violence, and it is estimated that it affects one in four women and one in six men at some time in their lives. It is an enormous problem.
We do not want someone to be forced to choose between staying at home in a violent relationship and facing the prospect of street homelessness. If accepted, the new clause would bring England into the same situation as already exists under the Welsh homelessness legislation, and I would commend it on that point alone.
The current law suggests that people who seek assistance from a local authority have to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. It is the difficulty of demonstrating that people are in priority need that we wish to address through the new clause. According to the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002, a victim of domestic violence is a
“person who is vulnerable as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodation by reason of violence from another person or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out.”
That sounds as if it provides protection, but the problem is the accepted definition of vulnerability, which states that someone who has become homeless in such circumstances is
“less able to fend for themselves than an ordinary homeless person”.
That definition of vulnerability gives rise to four problems with the current law. First, the nature of the vulnerability test leads to a number of problems to do with consistency and decision making. One authority may take a decision that is quite at odds with other authorities’ measures, so the leeway in the definition of vulnerability means that consistency is sometimes the first casualty of such decisions.
Secondly, in many cases decisions are resource-driven, and that assertion is not just based on anecdotal evidence from my own local authority area. Indeed, it was echoed by a Lord Justice, who said in Osmani v. Camden that
“decisions are often likely to be highly judgemental”.
That has often been the outcome when such cases come to court, and the new clause would go some way towards address the problem.
Thirdly, victims of domestic violence often find it extremely difficult to provide sufficient evidence of their vulnerability. It is not easy for someone to come forward—victims of domestic violence often do not go to the police or any other authority for help—and when they have to go to a housing authority it is difficult for them to prove that they are victims, which makes it problematic to deal with them under the existing definition. As a consequence, people are often forced, if the local authority is not helpful and if they cannot show the necessary evidence, into a stark choice: do they stay where they are, subject to further violence, which may have serious implications, or do they turn to the streets, simply go to central London and end up in a hostel? One benefit of the new clause is that it would enable us to tackle that great difficulty.
Fourthly, many of those single people—mostly women, but also some men—end up on the street or in a hostel. However, because they cannot prove that they are vulnerable, they are not picked up under homelessness legislation, so they spend considerable periods of time in hostel accommodation before they can move on. That, as we all know, silts up the hostel accommodation and makes it more difficult for other single, homeless people to access it. As I mentioned, the new clause would bring us into line with the situation in Wales, but most importantly it would provide a way out for one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. I mentioned earlier the level of domestic violence in this country and the shocking statistics; we know how violent some of those relationships can be. The new clause would provide an option—a way out—for someone who in those circumstances has difficulty showing that that is the situation. It would allow them to access alternative local authority accommodation, move on and restart their life without the problems caused by their violent partner, so I commend it to the Minister.

Grant Shapps: I rise to give general support to the intention behind the new clause, which I think is a very good one. There is definitely a problem concerning the difference between being intentionally and unintentionally homeless, particularly with regard to domestic violence. I suspect that all hon. Members have experience of dealing with constituency cases in which someone is clearly frightened to death by what is going on in their home but is scared to leave, because they have been told, perhaps by someone in the housing department, that if they do so and do not have clear evidence of violence, they will make themselves intentionally homeless, which means that they will not gain access to the services that they require.
Many of us are fortunate enough to have excellent women’s refuges and other facilities in our communities, but inevitably they never have sufficient capacity to deal with the large number of cases. Domestic abuse is very much a hidden problem; it takes place behind closed doors. It is right to consider amending the law to ensure that the balance of proof is pushed just a little further towards people who are suffering domestic abuse.

Margaret Moran: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton, and I congratulate him on tabling the new clause. Speaking about this issue, I have a feeling of dÃ(c)jÃ vu, because I was involved, as I believe he was, in considering a previous Housing Bill, in which we introduced the wider definition of vulnerability. We had a very good debate on domestic violence, and we believed that it would be incorporated by widening that definition. We thought that that would encourage more local authorities to take domestic violence into account when making decisions about homelessness. It was the Government’s intention at that time to incorporate the seriousness of domestic violence into consideration of whether someone was homeless and therefore entitled to be considered for accommodation. It was their intent to recognise domestic violence as a particular category.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and reinforce the Government’s intention. Despite our best intentions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said, it is still a postcode lottery as to whether someone who is a victim or survivor of domestic violence receives assistance from the local authority. It is very much down to the discretion and the definition of each local authority in deciding what vulnerability means. It is extremely difficult to categorise, so survivors—women predominantly—who flee domestic violence are in a predicament based entirely on where they live and whether the local authority is sufficiently sympathetic to their situation. That is what determines whether they can flee from repeat violence.
Let us be under no illusions: these are not individual assaults. Most victims and survivors of domestic violence have been repeatedly assaulted before they even report the fact. Consequently, we are forcing survivors to remain in a violent relationship, because they have no guarantees that they will not find themselves homeless if they try to secure their safety. We cannot possibly allow ourselves to remain in a situation in which we jeopardise the safety of vulnerable women simply because different local authorities have different definitions of vulnerability.
In my previous life, I ran a housing association. We were the only housing association in London specifically for women, and we were the only place where single women without children, or women without children generally, could find accommodation. That provision was tiny and wholly inadequate to meet the need. I refer the Minister to a recent report by Crisis. We know that in those circumstances either women become street homeless or, more likely, they spend years and years in a series of temporary arrangements, such as sleeping on people’s floors, that eventually fall to pieces. Very often, their lives fall to pieces, because without a permanent, settled home, they are unable to sustain working and other arrangements. At the end of the day, that also costs us. 
Some women are successful in fleeing their home and go to a Women’s Aid refuge, but that organisation has repeatedly told me that those refuges are silting up. There simply is not sufficient accommodation for those women. Again, we know that the availability of such refuges is a postcode lottery. We wish that it were not—we should have decent refuges everywhere in the country, but that is not the case. My hon. Friend the Minister and his Department need to get a grip on the problem, because those limited places are being silted up. Places must be held for those women, because they have nowhere else to go. They do not have the prospect of a local authority or housing association home to go to.
That costs the Government a lot, as does the problem of dealing the many other victims who cannot get a place in a refuge. It would be infinitely more sensible if we did in the Bill what we intended to do in the Housing Act 1996, and ensured that domestic violence is recognised as a priority category of homelessness. My hon. Friend gave compelling evidence. Given that women in Wales in the same situation are a priority for accommodation, it is deeply inequitable that women in England should not have the same rights.

Iain Wright: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton was disappointed with the last discussion, so I shall do my best to make amends. As he mentioned, the principal purpose of the clause is to bring those persons who have been subject to domestic violence or at risk of such violence within the category of persons who are given priority need under the homelessness legislation.
The Government take the issue of domestic abuse and violence extremely seriously. It is a nasty, pernicious and prevalent crime. It has devastating personal consequences for victims and their families, and it has a major impact on the local and national economy, the criminal justice system, and other statutory services. That is why we continue to work on many fronts to raise awareness and understanding of domestic violence, and try to improve delivery in all sectors. For example, recent investment in specialist domestic violence courts has resulted in successful domestic violence prosecutions rising from 42 per cent. in December 2003 to 67 per cent. in June 2006, exceeding the target that we set. My Department takes domestic violence extremely seriously, particularly the need to ensure that victims of domestic violence get the help and support that they need.
Under the current legislation, people who do not have dependent children have priority need if they are vulnerable as a result of leaving their home because of violence—not only domestic violence; it could be from another person—or threats of violence that are likely to be carried out. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield used the phrase, “intentionally homeless”, but the concept of intentionality is not the issue. The issue is more about whether the victim is vulnerable as a result of their circumstances, and therefore has priority need. I stress that applicants must be in priority need to be given the main homelessness duty and secure priority. However, there are other examples, including vulnerability as a result of old age, mental illness and mental and physical disability. People aged 21 or over could be vulnerable as a result of having been in care, and people who have been in custody and former members of the armed forces could be classed as vulnerable.
Other categories of applicant have priority need that is not conditional on their vulnerability. For example, people whose household includes a dependent child or pregnant woman, and young people aged 16 or 17. It is accepted that people in those circumstances, or at least a member of their household, could be vulnerable in such circumstances, if not in all cases. I cannot stress enough the fact that the Government take extremely seriously the issue of protection for people at risk of domestic violence. I know that there is some disquiet that, in practice, not all people who are classed as vulnerable because they have had to leave their home because of violence are accepted as being owed the main homelessness duty, and I fully take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton said about the apparent differences between England, Scotland and Wales.
I am therefore prepared to consider whether any changes to the legislation are necessary. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause, and I pledge to come back on Report and inform the House further about what we plan to do. With that commitment, I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured. I hope that I have wiped out his disappointment over the earlier discussion, and that he will withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Love: My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South and I remember the discussions that we had and the extra categories that we created when we discussed the Housing Act 2004. We thought that we had provided the level of protection necessary for the different categories that were included in that statutory instrument, but, as we have said, practical experience has shown that the vulnerability test is subject to wide variation in its application. It is a bit of a lottery, depending on which local authority one ends up with, because one local authority may be much less sympathetic than another.
Similarly, as we all know, especially London Members and Members from urban areas with acute housing difficulties, such decisions often have a component that relates to the level of housing stress and resource considerations, if I can put it in the terms used by a judge. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for recognising that. I hope that he will take that into account and recognise what the new clause attempts to do, which is to provide the additional protection that was intended in the 2004 Act but has not yet been delivered. The situation should be the same as in Wales, and I hope that he can achieve that. I look forward to what he will say on a future date, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 62

Eligibility for housing assistance
‘In section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996 (c. 52) (Persons from abroad not eligible for housing assistance) omit paragraph (b).’.—[Mr. Love.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Love: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I make no apology for tabling these new clauses. As one of the co-chairmen of the all-party group on homelessness and housing need, I suspect that it is my responsibility above all others to ventilate current issues of concern in respect of the legal situation as it applies to homeless people, who are some of the most vulnerable people in society, which I expect everyone in the House to accept.
New clause 62 is a probing amendment. It would amend the Housing Act 1996. The intention is to ensure that the law in respect of applications for accommodation as homeless is in compliance with the European convention on human rights. That is why I say that it is a probing amendment. I wish to ventilate some of the issues around particular court cases that have been decided recently.
Let me take the Committee back to the duty to accommodate that is laid on local authorities. As stated earlier, there are four requirements: people must be homeless, they have to be in priority need, they have to be eligible for assistance, and they cannot be intentionally homeless. Normally, an applicant who has dependent children would be in priority need. However, section 185 of the 1996 Act states:
“A person from abroad who is not eligible for housing assistance shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of this Part whether another person...has a priority need for accommodation.”
We all realise that children are often a gateway to being considered and accepted as homeless by a local authority. An applicant’s child can be an important consideration in the decision on homelessness. If that child is subject to immigration control because he or she is not a British citizen, that child may be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether the applicant has priority need—that is, if the person is a British citizen or has the right to remain in the country but the child does not, the child will be disregarded as far as the homelessness legislation is concerned. Therefore, they will not have a priority need, as decided by the local authority.
There have been a number of court cases in relation to that, which have ended up in the Court of Appeal. In one such case, the judge decided that where a dependent child is subject to immigration control, albeit the parent is not, the parent cannot establish a priority need for accommodation. That is the current situation. It was held to be incompatible with article 14 of the European convention on human rights by the Court of Appeal.
The judge decided that current legislation discriminated against the British citizen, who was the applicant, with a dependent child subject to immigration control. The Court of Appeal’s basic principle was that immigration control has no legitimate bearing at all on a British citizen. Therefore, if the applicant is a British citizen, their rights are considered to override the decision to not include their children, who are subject to immigration control. That is all very complicated and I am certainly not a lawyer.
I bring the matter before the Committee because the expectation was that, having made that determination, there was an opportunity to go to the House of Lords over it, as the Government did not seek to pursue it. Therefore, the expectation was that the law would be amended to bring it in to compliance with the convention. That has not happened. I know that the Government have given some reasons as to why not, particularly to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, because it has not happened, public or local authorities are obliged to continue applying section 185, although it is deemed incompatible. The law continues to discriminate against those British citizens with children who are subject to immigration control. We need to try to resolve that.
Have the Government considered the situation and do they intend to bring the law on homelessness into compliance with the European convention on human rights? That is an important consideration. It is deemed that people are being discriminated against by local authorities, and it is right and proper that the House should determine that that should stop.

Iain Wright: As my hon. Friend says, far more eloquently than I can, the new clause would reverse the situation with regard to homelessness legislation by repealing the provision requiring local housing authorities to disregard household members who are not eligible for housing assistance when determining whether an eligible applicant has a priority need for accommodation. The most likely reason that household members would be ineligible is that they are subject to immigration control—they are either here illegally, or have leave to enter or remain in the UK, conditional on them not having recourse to public funds.
My hon. Friend explained that the new clause would require local authorities to take into account such ineligible household members. Those members would therefore be able to confer priority need on the applicant. In those cases where the applicant was also unintentionally homeless, priority need would confer entitlement to the main homelessness duty to secure accommodation.
About 70 per cent. of homeless acceptances generally have priority need conferred on them by a pregnant spouse or partner, or by the presence of a dependent child. In the first instance, homeless acceptances are likely to be provided with temporary accommodation. For around 70 per cent. of acceptances, the homelessness duty is ultimately brought to an end with an offer of long-term social housing. My hon. Friend mentioned, quite rightly, that the new clause has been prompted by the fact that the courts have declared section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996 incompatible with the European convention on human rights. It requires a pregnant member of a British citizen’s household, or a dependent child, to be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether the British citizen is homeless or has priority need, in cases where the dependent child or pregnant household member is a person who is ineligible for assistance.
I am not a lawyer—I share that with my hon. Friend—but everyone can see that this matter raises some difficult policy issues about ineligible persons from abroad being able to confer entitlement to housing on another person, as well as difficult legal issues concerning human rights. I fully sympathise with him in tabling the new clause, but in my opinion—and I stress, I am no lawyer—simply repealing section 185(4)(b) is not the answer. We need to find the right balance—an appropriate balance—between our strong policy that persons from abroad who are not eligible for assistance should not be able to confer entitlement on someone else, and the requirements and conditions of the European convention on human rights.
I assure my hon. Friend that we will introduce a remedy as soon as we can, bearing in mind the difficulties that we have in trying to compete with those various policy and legal objectives. With that assurance, I hope that he will not insist on the new clause.

Andrew Love: Despite the threat of incurring the wrath of the Conservative party, I will say first and foremost that it is important for the UK to comply with the European convention on human rights. We have signed up to it and we should respect decisions that say that we are not complying fully with it.
However, I accept what the Minister says about the complexity of some of the issues, especially in a case where a child may be in the country illegally, which raises very serious issues. I also accept that there is good will on the part of the Department, and that he has reflected on matters and they are still being considered. They need to be looked at, and I hope that he will be able to find a way forward that continues to strike the right policy in a way that complies with the convention. If we can achieve both those things, it will undoubtedly satisfy the concern expressed in the new clause. I hope that he will do that, and I look forward to an early statement at some point in relation to the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Schedule 1

‘SCHEDULE
Demolition notices

Final demolition notices
1. Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (exceptions to the right to buy: final demolition notices) is amended as follows.
2(1) Paragraph 13 (final demolition notices) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (5) (period of validity of final demolition notices)—
(a) omit the “and” following paragraph (a),
(b) in paragraph (b) for “(7)” substitute “(7A)”, and
(c) after paragraph (b) insert “and
(c) the provisions of paragraph 15A.”
(3) In sub-paragraph (9) (certain references to landlord to include superior landlord) after “15” insert “(other than paragraph 15(7A)”.
3(1) Paragraph 15 (extension or revocation etc. of final demolition notices) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (7) (revocation notices) insert—
“(7A) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) do not apply if the landlord is selling or otherwise transferring his interest as landlord to another person or is offering it for sale or for other transfer.”
(3) In sub-paragraph (8) (restrictions on service of further notices)—
(a) after “in respect of it” insert “, by the landlord who served the earlier notice or any landlord who served a continuation notice in respect of the earlier notice,”,
(b) after “when the” insert “earlier”, and
(c) in paragraph (a) for “it” substitute “the further notice”.
4. After paragraph 15 insert—
“15A This paragraph applies if—
(a) a final demolition notice is in force in respect of a dwelling-house, and
(b) the landlord transfers his interest as landlord to another person.
(2) The final demolition notice (“the original notice”) continues in force but this is subject to—
(a) paragraphs 13(5) and 15, and
(b) the following provisions of this paragraph.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies if the transferee—
(a) intends to demolish the dwelling-house, but
(b) has not—
(i) served a continuation notice, and
(ii) complied with the conditions in sub-paragraphs (8) and (10),
within the period of 2 months beginning with the date of transfer.
(4) The transferee must proceed under paragraph 15(4) as if the transferee has decided not to demolish the dwelling-house (and paragraph 15(5) to (7) applies on the same basis).
(5) A continuation notice is a notice—
(a) stating that the transferee—
(i) has acquired the interest concerned, and
(ii) intends to demolish the dwelling-house or (as the case may be) the building containing it (“the relevant premises”),
(b) setting out the reasons why the transferee intends to demolish the relevant premises,
(c) stating that one of conditions A to C in paragraph 14 is satisfied in relation to the original notice (specifying the condition concerned),
(d) stating that the original notice is to continue in force, and
(e) explaining the continued effect of the original notice.
(6) A continuation notice may not vary the proposed demolition date in the original notice nor the date when the original notice will cease to be in force.
(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies if—
(a) the dwelling-house is contained in a building which contains one or more other dwelling-houses, and
(b) the transferee intends to demolish the whole of the building.
(8) The transferee must serve a continuation notice on the occupier of each of the dwelling-houses contained in the building (whether addressed to him by name or just as “the occupier”).
(9) An accidental omission to serve a continuation notice on one or more occupiers does not prevent the condition in sub-paragraph (8) from being satisfied.
(10) Paragraph 13(7) and (8) apply in relation to the transferee’s intention to demolish so as to impose a condition on the transferee for a notice to appear within the period of 2 months beginning with the date of transfer.
(11) Sub-paragraphs (7) to (10) above apply instead of paragraph 13(6) to (8) in relation to a final demolition notice so far as continued in force under this paragraph.”
5. In paragraph 16(1) (notices under paragraphs 13 and 15) for “or 15” substitute “, 15 or 15A”.

Initial demolition notices
6. Schedule 5A to the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (initial demolition notices) is amended as follows.
7. In paragraph 2(1) (period of validity of initial demolition notices) for “paragraph 3” substitute “paragraphs 3 and 3A”.
8. In paragraph 3(1) (revocation of initial demolition notices: application of paragraph 15(4) to (7) of Schedule 5 to that Act) for “(7)” substitute “(7A)”.
9. After paragraph 3 insert—

“Transfer of initial demolition notices
3A(1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) an initial demolition notice is in force in respect of a dwelling-house, and
(b) the landlord transfers his interest as landlord to another person.
(2) The initial demolition notice (“the original notice”) continues in force but this is subject to—
(a) paragraphs 2 and 3, and
(b) the following provisions of this paragraph.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies if the transferee—
(a) intends to demolish the dwelling-house, but
(b) has not—
(i) served a continuation notice, and
(ii) complied with the conditions in sub-paragraphs (8) and (10),
within the period of 2 months beginning with the date of transfer.
(4) The transferee must proceed under paragraph 15(4) of Schedule 5 as applied by paragraph 3(1) above as if the transferee has decided not to demolish the dwelling-house (and paragraph 15(5) to (7) of that Schedule as so applied applies on the same basis).
(5) A continuation notice is a notice—
(a) stating that the transferee—
(i) has acquired the interest concerned, and
(ii) intends to demolish the dwelling-house or (as the case may be) the building containing it (“the relevant premises”),
(b) setting out the reasons why the transferee intends to demolish the relevant premises,
(c) stating that the original notice is to continue in force, and
(d) explaining the continued effect of the original notice.
(6) A continuation notice may not vary the period specified in the original notice in accordance with paragraph 1(1)(c).
(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies if—
(a) the dwelling-house is contained in a building which contains one or more other dwelling-houses, and
(b) the transferee intends to demolish the whole of the building.
(8) The transferee must serve a continuation notice on the occupier of each of the dwelling-houses contained in the building (whether addressed to him by name or just as “the occupier”).
(9) An accidental omission to serve a continuation notice on one or more occupiers does not prevent the condition in sub-paragraph (8) from being satisfied.
(10) Paragraph 13(7) of Schedule 5 applies in relation to the transferee’s intention to demolish so as to impose a condition on the transferee for a notice to appear within the period of 2 months beginning with the date of transfer; and paragraph 2(3) above applies for this purpose.
(11) Sub-paragraphs (7) to (10) above apply instead of paragraph 2(2) and (3) in relation to an initial demolition notice so far as continued in force under this paragraph.”
10(1) Paragraph 4 (restrictions on service of further notices) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (2) (further initial demolition notices)—
(a) after “dwelling-house” insert “, by the landlord who served the relevant notice or any landlord who served a continuation notice in respect of the relevant notice,”, and
(b) in paragraph (a) for “it” substitute “the further notice”.
(3) In sub-paragraph (3) (final demolition notices)—
(a) after “dwelling-house” insert “, by the landlord who served the relevant notice or any landlord who served a continuation notice in respect of the relevant notice,”, and
(b) in paragraph (a) for “it” substitute “the final demolition notice”.
11. In paragraph 5 (notices under Schedule 5A) for “or 15” substitute “, 15 or 15A”.
12. In paragraph 6(1) (interpretation) after “Schedule” insert “(other than paragraph 3A)”.

Transitional provision
13. This Schedule does not apply to notices served before the coming into force of the Schedule.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Brought up, read the First time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Restriction of “registered social landlord” system to Wales

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in clause 63, page 29, line 42, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
‘( ) The table sets out substitutions which have effect throughout the Part (except section 51 and Schedule 2); and where necessary in consequence of those substitutions, for words in the singular substitute appropriate corresponding words in the plural.

Expression

Substitution
“the Relevant Authority”
“the Welsh Ministers”
“the Authority”
“the Welsh Ministers”
“the Relevant Authority’s”
“the Welsh Ministers’”’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 164.

Iain Wright: We are now on the track of part 2, which will establish the office of tenants in terms of regulating social housing. I wanted to start with some grand rhetoric about how we are raising tenants’ services for social housing, but I thought better of it. I shall start with what I am best at, which is technical amendments.
The new regulator will cover England, not Wales. Clauses 63 to 65 amend the Housing Act 1996 so that the provisions in part 1 of that Act will apply only to Wales in future. This means that references to the Housing Corporation or the Secretary of State will be replaced with a specific reference to Welsh Ministers.
The amendments simply ensure that substitutions are made everywhere where they need to be. Amendment No. 163 amends subsection (7). The 1996 Act used the term “the relevant authority” for the Housing Corporation and Welsh Ministers. We are replacing that term with “Welsh Ministers.” The amendment ensures that where the 1996 Act uses the term “the authority” or “the relevant authorities” suitable substitutions are made. It also replaces singular pronouns and verb endings and ensures that the changes are not made in section 51 and schedule 2 of the 1996 Act, which cover the housing ombudsman. That is because the ombudsman does not cover Wales and these sections of the 1996 Act will still be relevant to England. We want to be sure that any reference to the relevant authority there is not substituted.
Amendment No. 164 amends clause 64, which substitutes “Welsh Ministers” for “Secretary of State” in a specified list of provisions of the 1996 Act. The amendment simply ensures that where that Act says the “Secretary of State makes”, it should say “Welsh Ministers make”. I hope that I have explained the technical amendments and that the Committee accepts them.

Lembit Öpik: To avoid a further stand part debate, I shall ask the Minister the same question that I asked about the interrelations between the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales—whoever that may be—and the Welsh Assembly. The specific question that I hope he can also write to me about is to what extent could the Secretary of State for Wales overrule decisions made by the Assembly Ministers in the event of a disagreement. Once again, I do not necessarily expect him to have the information now—I would be stunned if he did. If at some point in the next week or two, he could write to me, that would be helpful, and I will pass on the information to colleagues in the Assembly.

Iain Wright: I hope the hon. Gentleman that is ready to be stunned. Since devolution took place in around 1998, housing has been a devolved matter. Any change to social housing regulation in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government, not the Secretary of State for Wales. I will clarify that and write to the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee to confirm that, but it is my strong belief at the moment.

Clause 63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

References to Welsh Ministers

Amendment made: No. 164, in clause 64, page 30, line 4, at end insert—
‘( ) for “Secretary of State makes” substitute “Welsh Ministers make”,’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 64, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Dissolution of Housing Corporation

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in clause 66, page 31, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert—
‘(2) The Secretary of State may by order’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 166 and 167.
Government new clause 34—Transfer schemes.
Government new clause 35—Interim arrangements.

Iain Wright: These amendments and new clauses provide for the effective and smooth transition from the Housing Corporation to the new regulator, Oftenant, and the Homes and Communities Agency. Amendment No. 165 will amend subsection (2) to allow the Secretary of State to make orders either before or after the dissolution of the Housing Corporation. The existing subsection as currently drafted may only have allowed for a single order.
Government new clause 34 will replace subsection (4) and make provision that the Secretary of State may make one or more schemes for the transfer of the Housing Corporation’s properties, rights or liabilities to the regulator, the HCA or the Secretary of State.
Government new clause 35 will replace subsection (3) and enable the Secretary of State to require the Housing Corporation to provide staff, premises, facilities or other assistance—for example, by providing information to the HCA or the regulator. I suggest that that would ease the transition to the new regulator, which, depending on the passage of the Bill, we aim to have operational from April 2009. It is important that both the regulator and the HCA can pick up where the Housing Corporation leaves off in terms of regulatory interventions and grant payments. The amendments and new clauses will assist in that process, so I hope that the Committee will accept them.

George Young: I wonder whether I might press the Minister a little on what he said. As I understand it, he will be able to wind up the two components of the Housing Corporation on different dates. Is it possible to wind up the bit that deals with the regulator on one date and the bit that will hand over to the HCA on another date? If so, can he say that the date on which the relevant part of the Housing Corporation is wound up will be the same as the date on which the successor bodies take over, or does he envisage establishing the two bodies and then, at a later date, winding up and dissolving the relevant part of the Housing Corporation? In other words, is there a big bang? Is there one day when the Housing Corporation is dissolved and the HCA takes over and another day on which the regulator takes over? Or will the order in clause 66 enable the Secretary of State to dissolve the Housing Corporation after the two other bodies have been established?

Iain Wright: No, there is no intention to have a big bang. We want to make sure that we have a seamless transition. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, the regulatory part of the Housing Corporation could move at a slightly different pace to that of the investment function. The clause will provide the flexibility to do that.
I anticipate, although I do not want to box anyone in, that all that will be done on the same day, but that might not be the case. I also want to point out to the Committee that we have recently appointed Kate Barker—a Housing Corporation board member and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee—to chair the Oftenant transition programme board. That group comprises staff from my Department, the corporation, the Audit Commission and elsewhere. It is working to ensure operational readiness for regulatory system, staff, accommodation and that sort of thing. As I said, I imagine that the two bodies will come into play at the same time, but the clause will provide flexibility in circumstances that might not happen.

George Young: Can the Minister assure me that two regulators will not be in existence on the same day?

Iain Wright: Yes, I can.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 166, in clause 66, page 31, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
No. 167, in clause 66, page 31, line 23, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Wright.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: I rise only to ask a question that has puzzled me for some time. Why is the title of clause 66 “Dissolution of Housing Corporation”, as against “abolition”, which was used in titles relating to the Urban Regeneration Agency and the Commission for the New Towns in clauses 51 and 52? What is the significance of the different terminology?

Iain Wright: As my right hon. Friend will know, I have not got a clue. I will endeavour to find out and to provide the information to him and the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Basic principle

George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in clause 67, page 31, line 27, leave out from ‘means—’ to end of line 29 and insert
‘Housing that is in direct receipt of Government Capital Grant Funding.’.
Clause 67 defines social housing in broad terms, and clauses 68, 69 and 70 tighten up that definition. My amendment seeks to focus the definition of social housing more narrowly, and to do so in terms of the receipt of public funds. My concern is that the definition of social housing in clause 67 and the subsequent clauses is broader than the Housing Corporation’s current remit.
As I understand it, the Housing Corporation finances, regulates and facilitates the proper performance of housing associations. It also pays grants to unregistered bodies. So a registered housing association comes within the embrace of the Housing Corporation, and it is almost certainly in receipt of some public funds. The receipt of the public funds gives Parliament the right to supervise how that money is spent. Bodies that are in receipt of public funds are rightly exposed to greater scrutiny than the private landlords that we were talking about this morning.
My concern about clause 67 is that it goes wider than housing associations. For example, if someone decided to set up a charity, the purpose of which coincided broadly with what we see in clause 68—in other words, they wanted to provide homes at below market rate for people in housing need—they would be supervised by the Charity Commission. However, they would not come into contact with the Housing Corporation, because they might not be a registered housing association and so would not get any money. Under clause 67 and the subsequent clauses, that operation would fall under the new social housing regulator, but it would not have fallen within the embrace of the Housing Corporation.
Likewise, if a philanthropic company, such as Rowntree, had some land and wanted to make it available for exactly the purposes laid out in clause 67 and subsequent clauses, it could give the land for no cost at all to a company, which could then provide low-cost homes for below-market rent or, as laid out in clause 69, low-cost home ownership. At the moment, such a company would not be regulated by the Housing Corporation, but under clause 67, it would be. That could result in the emergence of our old friend the perverse consequence.
Organisations that might want to do exactly what the Minister and the Committee want—namely, provide more affordable homes—would be deterred because they would come within a regulatory framework under which they would not come at the moment. Places for People has briefed all members of the Committee. It states:
“The definition currently in the Bill could have the adverse effect of preventing this sort of product coming to the market.”
The sort of product that it has in mind is low-cost rental and low-cost home ownership. Therefore, is this a broader definition than the one that we have currently? Will it catch the well-meaning organisations that are not so regulated at the moment? If so, we have to ask why.

Nick Raynsford: I rise to oppose the amendment, because I feel that it fails to understand the implications of the Cave review, which is for domain regulation, and would result in a number of very perverse consequences for the oversight of social housing. Cave’s proposal for a domain regulator obviously has a wider remit than the narrow remit that was accorded to the Housing Corporation. We know that it is intended that the provision of local authority housing and arm’s length management organisation housing should be brought within the domain in due course.
Clearly, the examples that the right hon. Gentleman cited are of philanthropic organisations, such as Rowntree. Incidentally, Rowntree’s housing association is registered, and I see no reason why a similar one should not be registered in future. However, if it were not registered, it would still be appropriate for it to be regulated, because it is in the interests of tenants that they should have broadly comparable protection.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that under the regulatory provision, there can be private providers, profit-making providers and non-for-profit providers, all of whom can provide housing that would come within the ambit of the regulator. On the first point—I will come to the second in a moment—I feel that the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal is not appropriate.

George Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the philanthropic body that I described should come under the embrace of the social housing regulator, when some of the unscrupulous landlords that we talked about this morning would not?

Nick Raynsford: Another interesting question is whether the entire rented sector should be regulated. That is a separate debate, but I take as my starting point the fact that we are to give effect to the Cave review recommendations, which propose that the whole social housing sector should be a domain subject to regulation. That is the first reason why I oppose the amendment.
My second reason for opposing the amendment is that it will have some very perverse consequences. Landlords are increasingly looking to subsidise social housing through housing for sale. London and Quadrant—one of the more innovative housing associations, which is based in my constituency and has a large number of properties all over the south of England—is involved in an extremely exciting new development at Stratford that overlooks the Olympic site. The profits from the sale of some of the units will subsidise other units that will be available for social renting—something that would otherwise not be possible.
Would it really be sensible that tenants in properties that are subsidised by profits from sales should not have the benefit of the regulatory system that applies to others? Similarly, if as a result of a section 106 agreement, land was made available at less than best value and therefore houses could be provided at a rent appropriate for social housing, should that be excluded from the regulatory purpose? I do not see how we can encourage a more innovative approach from landlords and housing associations, cross-subsidising and making the most of the planning system, if we then say that the people who occupy the housing that is the product of such developments should not have the benefits received by others whose homes have been in receipt of public subsidy.

George Young: Does the right hon. Gentleman want to bring within the embrace of regulation organisations that fall outwith it at the moment?

Nick Raynsford: No, it is not my wish to do that—other than for the providers of social housing. However, it is my wish to prevent those who are within the ambit now going outside it. I suspect that the amendment would make that possible, and Places for People could well end up—possibly, this is their ambition—as a large development company. The language that it uses in its publicity describes it as a development company, not a housing association, and it has certain elements that are entirely outwith the regulated sector.
I am not sure whether that is a sensible way forward. I see real benefit in the housing association movement being entrepreneurial and providing a range of products, including housing for sale, while being part of the same movement and subject to the same regulations. I would be rather opposed to changes that made it possible for some to opt out of the framework, simply because they did not receive money for a certain development.
I discussed the matter with chief executive of Places for People yesterday, and I made it clear that I have no sympathy for the amendment, so it will come as no surprise to him to hear that I oppose it. I hope that the Minister will take a similar view.

Lembit Öpik: I have more expansive comments to make about the clause, Mr. Gale, and I hope that you will permit me to do so in a clause stand part debate. I believe that that will make more sense. If I do so now, I will be going slightly wide of the amendment.
My concern relates to definitions. I have to thank Shelter for highlighting the issue, which relates to clauses 67 to 70, although I do not intend to make the same comments on clauses 68, 69 and 70. Shelter recommends that the definitions should be amended to put it beyond doubt that the Government intend social renting to retain its key characteristics of affordability and security, and even more importantly, that it is kept separate from low-cost home ownership. In other words, the social renting sector should not be confused with low-cost home ownership or any other kind of so-called affordable housing by coming under the same definition.
Shelter’s concern is that, if there is a confusion of those two definitions, it could result in “social housing” becoming the standard term to describe both low-cost rental and low-cost home ownership. It would be unfortunate if that happened, because the definitions are not merely notional; they also make a practical difference to how we organise affordable housing in this land. The characteristics of social rented housing are clear. First, it is let on an affordable rent. The definition of that already exists very clearly in other Government documents. Secondly, it offers security of tenure for life.
The new definition in the Bill seems to put those characteristics at risk and change the nature of social housing. The wording leaves the door open for a loss of security and affordability, not only for new entrants to social rented housing, but for those people already living in it. That might be an unintended consequence, or the Government might be consciously seeking to make that change. The difficulty is that it erodes current protections for residents in social rented housing. That seems a rather serious change.
Low-cost home ownership is a relatively new concept, and it was introduced on a very small scale in the 1980s and 1990s. Recently, there has been a more rapid rise in house prices. Home ownership becoming more desirable and more difficult has led to an increase in low-cost home ownership. The obvious problem is that private developers prefer to discharge their obligations to include affordable housing in their developments under section 106 by building low-cost houses, rather than rented houses. In Shelter’s submission to the comprehensive spending review in 2007, it pointed out that the situation is serious. Data on completions indicate a shift away from rented accommodation towards low-cost home ownership.
The present definition of social rented housing is very important. In the current climate, when social rented housing is desperately needed, it seems that the situation is militating away from that type of accommodation and towards low-cost housing. The Government have acknowledged some of the issues that relate to definitions in their planning policy statement of 2006, in which definitions that sought to clarify what social rented housing actually is were published for the first time. That leads me to the key point.
At a time when the Government are evidently committed to building specific target amounts of social rented housing, it seems counter-productive to introduce a new definition of social housing that could encompass low-cost home ownership, as well as low-cost rental. The easier it is for builders to construct premises intended for low-cost home ownership, the more likely they are to do that instead of constructing low-cost rented houses.
There is also a problem with rents. It is not currently clear how future rents in social rented housing will be set. For some time, a rent restructuring regime has specified maximum rents and annual rent increases in social rented housing. The definition of social rented housing under PPS3 refers specifically to controlled rent as a defining characteristic of social rented housing. The Bill seems to change that and discontinue the rent regime. I therefore ask the Minister whether that is the intention and a correct understanding of what the Bill will do.
Until that matter is resolved, there is a risk to the affordability of social rented housing. In fairness, clause 68 states that rent should be “below the market rate”, but it does not guarantee that that rent will be affordable. For example, in London, even fairly basic tenancies are extremely expensive. There is a lot of latitude beneath the free market for very high rents. I hope that the Minister can give some clarity on that issue.
The definitions of low-cost rental housing under the Bill appear to change the security of tenure guarantee. Clause 68(c), which we will come to—I will not make the speech again at that point—states that low-cost rental housing is to have
“rules for eligibility designed to ensure that it is occupied by people who cannot afford to buy or rent at market rate.”
By making reference to those who occupy social housing, rather than to those to whom social housing is being allocated, the Bill implies that assessments of eligibility could be ongoing for existing tenants and take place not just when the property is being allocated to a tenant. The implications of that are fairly clear.
My second explicit question to the Minister is whether that is a correct understanding of what the Bill does. He may want to comment on that issue when we discuss clause 68, but if he wants to do so now, that is fine. If that is a correct understanding of the Bill, will he consider making a modification to tighten up that definition?
I have one more question on the fundamental issue of definitions. Does the Minister understand that bringing rental housing and low-cost home ownership together will lead to the potential problems that have been described? Will he consider that between now and Report? The Housing Minister has made a point of saying on a number of occasions that there is no threat to the security of tenure, but it is curious to put that together with what will happen under the definition in clauses 67 to 70. To avoid doubt and confusion, I should be grateful if the Minister clarified what is intended. Does he share any of the concerns that Shelter and I harbour in regard to these definitions?

Grant Shapps: I know from conversations with the Minister before the Bill came to Committee that he was as concerned as I was that the definitions might cause confusion for all of the reasons that we have heard about. Clause 67 is the starting point for a series of clauses that goes up to clause 70 and deals with these definitions. This is the right place to tighten up the definitions, so that everybody is clear about the meaning of the descriptions in these clauses.
The Minister has written to you, Mr. Gale, and has been kind enough to copy me in, to point out that amendments have been tabled to address the issues raised by the definition of social housing. Although we are discussing clause 67, those amendments have direct relevance in clauses 68 and 69. I raised those issues with the Minister for Housing in the evidence session to seek reassurances that, by broadening the scope of the definition of social housing, we will not be playing tricks with claims about the amount of social housing that is being provided.
The Minister and his colleagues are sensitive to the accusation that they have built less social housing in every year of the past 10 years than in any of the years under Thatcher and Major. If we are to resolve the issue in a way that satisfies Shelter and other members of the Committee, we should adopt the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire that says simply that housing
“in direct receipt of Government Capital Grant Funding”
should be considered as the style of housing that we think of as social housing.
It seems to me that, in recent years, the definitions of social housing and affordable housing have been made much clearer by things such as PPS3 and the descriptions that we have been hearing about. Now is not the time to muddy those definitions. I appreciate that the Minister will almost certainly explain that amendments have been tabled to the clauses that we are about to debate—clause 68, in particular—to clarify some unnecessary muddying of the water and confusion. I ask the Minister to seriously consider, either now or on Report, accepting a much clearer definition that all hon. Members would be much happier with.

Andrew Slaughter: I wish to comment briefly on what was said by the last two speakers. A little bit of mischief is being made—but not very well. It was rather like watching incompetent magicians, who I always find more entertaining than real ones.
It is not that there was no substance in what was said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, but it would have had a little more credibility if the Minister had not, as I understand it, already given assurances on security of tenure. Concerns about the subject were raised over the past year or two, but that ghost has now been laid to rest; at least, I hope it has. I would have a little more sympathy on rental targets if it were not for the fact that Liberal Democrat councils in London singularly failed to meet London plan targets in relation to rented housing.
Of course, London authorities have good targets, well set out by the Mayor—50 per cent. social housing, and within that a 35 per cent. and 15 per cent. split between rented housing and shared ownership or intermediate housing. We should all support that, and nationally I think that the Liberal Democrat party does, but it is honoured more in the breach than in the execution at local level. However, that is not why I want to speak. I want to make a brief point, probably as much on the amendment as what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said—so I shall pretend that it is.
I mentioned on Tuesday, when we were debating clause 272, a concern that I and others have in relation not to the breadth but to the narrowness of the definition. I understand that the Minister does not intend the basic principle set out in clause 67 to apply to local authority and registered social landlord Gypsy and Traveller sites. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that it is the intention, in due course, for the regulator to cover local authority housing, and if the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and me to clauses 109 to 111 are successful—I hope they will be—that will happen sooner rather than later. In any event, it will happen.
In my opinion, it is appropriate that the regulator should be given a remit for Gypsy and Traveller sites, whether RSL or local authority sites. In our debate on clause 272, we touched on the fact that often, and regrettably, the management of Gypsy and Traveller sites is not up to the standard even of much other social housing. As this part of the Bill is meant in part to improve the quality of management of social housing, it is entirely appropriate that the regulator should be given such a remit. The very fact that we need clause 272 to bring security of tenure on to an even keel is indicative of the fact that we have some way to go to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller sites are treated by local authorities in the same way as they treat other tenants.
The reason why I did not table an amendment is that it is not necessary, as clause 71 gives the Secretary of State the ability to widen that definition by regulation. Indeed, clause 71(2) specifically states that it may be done
“where the Secretary of State thinks the accommodation is of a kind, or is provided in circumstances, that serve the needs of a group whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market.”
That is almost a definition of what local authority and RSL Gypsy and Traveller sites provide. I shall not press the point further now, except to say that I would like the Minister to indicate in his reply that he will consider the matter for subsequent regulation and that the Government will look at it if they believe that regulation should be extended in that way, as I believe it is a clear case.

Iain Wright: Members have raised an awful lot of issues about the definition of social housing and I will respond with regard to the group of amendments that relate to clause 68. A number of things need to be mentioned. I will touch upon definition, security of tenure and other such issues when considering that group of amendments because they are incredibly important.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about rent restructuring, I do not think that there is anything in the Bill that undermines rent restructuring. The Bill actually gives the regulator power to set standards, and I am looking forward to the debate on clause 173, which deals with that. It gives the regulator power to set standards on rents and gives Ministers power to direct, so in that respect, I do not think that there is an issue or that the measure undermines rent restructuring.

Lembit Öpik: Shelter’s concern is that the provision distinctly removes the security of tenure, albeit subtly. I will come back to that point in relation to clause 68. With regard to the rental point, I was persuaded, having looked at the Bill and spoken to Shelter, that the provisions would weaken the confidence tenants currently enjoy that rents will be reasonable. That might be a difference of opinion, so I will certainly have another look at the provisions and hope that the Minister will as well.

Iain Wright: I am clear that the Bill maintains a clear distinction between rented housing and low-cost home ownership. This and subsequent clauses have a definite purpose—to regulate social housing to raise standards, and that important distinction remains.
With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush about Gypsies and Travellers, I attended a meeting of the all-party group on Gypsy and Traveller law reform on Wednesday, at which the issue was raised. I hope that I reassured my hon. Friend when I was there, but I reiterate for the Committee that sites and accommodation provided by registered social landlords for Gypsies and Travellers—there are relatively few of them at the moment—come under the responsibility of the regulator. We will shortly have an interesting debate on cross-domain regulation. There is a little bit of work to be done with regard to local authority sites and Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, but his interpretation is exactly the same as mine, which is that that could be regulated under clause 71, and I hope that reassures him further.
I have a lot of time and respect for the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, who moved the amendment, and my respect and admiration for him have grown since working with him on the Bill. However, I fundamentally disagree with the amendment. I do not think that its intention is clear and do not know what its full effect would be. That is partly because it would have an impact on the other aspects of the definition that we have touched on throughout our considerations, yet they have not been reflected in other amendments. In part, too, getting the definition of social housing right is not easy. I am a good example of that: I certainly do not seem to have got it right although I have tried to reassure hon. Members about that. It is true that any changes that are made have wide implications and there may be unintended perceptions, as I have experienced when attempting to define social housing.
However, one effect of the amendment is clear—because it says so on the face of the amendment: it would exclude from regulation new social housing that has not been in direct receipt of Government grant funding. Under the Housing Act 1996, the whole stock of a registered social landlord can be subject to regulation, no matter how it is funded. The amendment would change that position fundamentally. In particular, tenants of social rented housing funded by planning gain, by section 106 obligations, and without grant—my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is right to note that we have been talking about a diversity of people coming to social housing—would not be protected by standards set by the regulator. Local authorities, when negotiating such planning gain agreements, would not be able to rely on regulations as they do now, and would seek to replicate some of those terms in what would probably be an unwieldy way.
Conversely, not all grant used to provide housing is for social housing. In future—we touched on this point a lot during our consideration of part 1—the Homes and Communities Agency will not only fund social housing but in some places may bring about market housing. I have said before that we would not want those market homes to be social housing under this definition and thus subject to regulation, nor would we want to require that their owners be registered providers. We had an interesting stand part debate on clause 35 on that point.
It all comes down to my fundamental concern, which is that the amendment defines social housing as the means by which it is achieved rather than by its characteristics. I stress to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and the Committee that we want to amend the provision; we are about to discuss those amendments. We shall amend the wording used to define the characteristics to make clear what we mean by social housing. I believe strongly that this philosophical policy point—that social housing should be defined by means of its characteristics—is the right approach. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider what I have said.

Lembit Öpik: The Minister has, in a sense, answered my question. I was about to ask him whether it was accidental or intentional that the distinction between rented and low-cost home ownership is blurred. He says that he is happy to get rid of that definition. I cannot remember his exact words, but it is clear that he wants to blur the distinction. Is my understanding correct? Are the Government consciously blurring the distinction between rented accommodation and local-cost home ownership?

Iain Wright: No. In response to an earlier question, I told the hon. Gentleman that the Bill provides a clear distinction. We have experienced difficulties with the definition. We want to define what needs to be regulated, but the difficulty is defining what is social housing. I am very clear that there is a large distinction between rented housing and low-cost home ownership. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman.
In response to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, I hope that I have made my position clear. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

George Young: Let me begin by saying exactly what the Minister said about me. As these proceedings go on, I develop my respect for him—but.
I draw two conclusions from what the hon. Gentleman said. He will be pleased with the first, which is that my amendment has too narrow a definition. The second is that his definition is too wide. 
I accept what was said by the Minister and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—that because it would exclude section 106 and planning gain, the amendment defines social housing too narrowly. On that ground, it ought to be resisted. I also accept that housing associations that are currently regulated should not fall outwith regulation because of the definition. However, the definition in the clause will catch organisations that would not be caught at the moment.
What the Minister said convinced me that what I said at the beginning was right. As an example, I take a philanthropic organisation that is seriously considering entering that market and wants to provide homes at below market rent and homes to meet the needs set out in the clause. If it goes down that road without applying to anyone for money—no section 106 money, no grant—but then discovers that under clause 173 an outside body can come along and fix its rents, fix its allocation policy and fix its method of handling tenants’ complaints, it might draw back and say, “If I do not provide houses for people in need, and houses at below market rent, but go for full-cost houses and houses that I can let at market rents, I do not get any of this regulation.”
Faced with that scenario, will the Minister not concede that as currently defined it might pull against the thrust of the Bill, which is to provide more low-cost affordable homes? There is a risk of over-regulation and perverse consequences if he introduces the very broad definition that we see in clause 67.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Low cost rental

Andrew Gwynne: I beg to move amendment No. 327, in clause 68, page 31, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
‘(b) the rent is below the market rate to such an extent that it is affordable to those on low incomes’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 168
Amendment No. 328, in clause 68, page 32, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
‘(c) the accommodation is let in accordance with rules for eligibility designed to give preference to people in housing need whilst also promoting mixed and sustainable communities.’.
Government amendment No. 169
Amendment No. 329, in clause 69, page 32, line 12, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) Condition 2 is that the accommodation is affordable for those on low incomes and made available in accordance with rules for eligibility designed to give preference to people who cannot afford to buy or rent at market rates whilst also promoting mixed and sustainable communities.’.
Government amendments Nos. 170 to 172 and 177.

Andrew Gwynne: The Bill designates two types of housing as social housing—low-cost rented accommodation and low-cost home ownership. My amendments would further clarify what is meant by “low-cost”, so that such housing is made realistically affordable to people on low incomes.
Amendment No. 327 would prevent providers of social housing, be they private providers, registered social landlords or local authorities, from letting units as low-cost rental homes if the rent was only marginally below market level, which as a result would still be out of reach to those on low incomes. Amendment No. 328 would give legislative expression to the aspiration of achieving mixed communities on housing estates in the context of the limited supply of low-cost homes currently available for rental.
Amendment No. 329 would ensure that those aims apply in relation to low-cost home ownership, too. It would ensure that low-cost home ownership was genuinely affordable and was, therefore, a genuine option for those on low incomes.
My concern is that many homes are originally planned and designed as low-cost housing, but are ultimately sold or let only marginally below market value. In addition, the amendments would give legislative and regulatory expression to the aspiration of achieving mixed communities in areas of privately owned accommodation.
As right hon. and hon. Members will know from their surgeries, many homes provided through the affordable housing programme—both social rented and low-cost home ownership schemes—are increasingly priced beyond the limits of realistic affordability. As currently worded, the Bill will not rectify the problem; it will not guarantee to help those facing such affordability pressures.
The amendments would result in social housing having to be priced at a level that was affordable for people on low incomes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush pointed out on 11 December, Wandsworth council once called properties at 99 per cent. of the market rate affordable. Other authorities are targeting their affordable housing at people with incomes of between £50,000 and £60,000 a year, something referred to by my hon. Friend earlier today. Those are certainly not the levels of income that I come across when attempting to help my constituents find a home that they can realistically afford. The average annual income in my constituency is £16,500 a year, with many people earning a lot less than that. As we increase social housing to rent and to buy, we need to ensure that it is affordable to people on that sort of income.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the reduction in the level of housing corporation grant per unit has led to the problem becoming more acute, with some housing associations increasing the number of homes they rent at intermediate rates relative to the number of homes let at social rents.
There are further upward pressures on pricing. The National Housing Federation recently called for non-profit-making housing associations to have the power to raise rents by 1 per cent. above the retail prices index rather than the RPI plus 0.5 per cent. as at present.
Affordability is an issue for people looking for a home to rent and those needing help to get on the housing ladder alike. Last year’s Halifax key worker survey showed that a nurse living in London would have to spend more than 10 times his or her annual salary to buy a house, an increase of nearly a quarter since 2002. It is not a problem only in the capital. Although the problem is acute in parts of London, house prices in my constituency have risen by almost 500 per cent. over the past 10 years, making even a modest terraced house unavailable for people on a low income. According to the Halifax survey, only 1 per cent. of towns across the country are affordable for nurses, and teachers are priced out of the market in 78 per cent. of towns. The difficulties are not restricted to entry-level salaries or to those in one or two occupational groups; the issue affects working people in all sectors of the economy and it is the lowest paid who face the greatest difficulties. If teachers are priced out of the market in 78 per cent. of our towns, there is little chance for teaching assistants, cleaners, bus drivers or shop workers either.
Key worker schemes have certainly provided some respite and I welcome the Department for Communities and Local Government’s new campaign to provide information to key workers, to raise awareness of the scheme and to make it easier and simpler for employees to apply. Nevertheless, opportunities to access key worker schemes are clearly limited to specific occupational groups. Such schemes should not be an alternative to increasing the supply of affordable housing more generally.
The Bill makes it clear that low-cost rental accommodation and low-cost home ownership should be set below the market rate. My amendments would ensure that those two varieties of social housing are realistically available to all those on low incomes. I appreciate that there will be further work to do to define what we mean by low income in the regulations, but introducing low income into the equation and referring to it in the Bill would provide greater clarity than simply defining social housing as below the market rate.
As I stated, my amendments would give some legislative expression to the aim of creating mixed and sustainable communities. In the Bill, there is a sense that social housing—whether low-cost ownership or low-cost rental—will be housing of last resort and that it will be exclusively for those who cannot afford the market rate. In the current context of scarcity of supply, I am sure that hon. Members believe that the needs of those with abject housing problems should be prioritised. However, we should not forget our long-term aspiration to create genuine mixed-community developments and to avoid past problems caused by building large amounts of social housing separate from areas of privately owned housing. I realise that the primary way in which that can be achieved is by solving the current lack of supply of housing and consequential high prices by building more homes. I fully support the Government’s ambitious goal of increasing the supply of housing so that 3 million new homes are provided by 2020. However, a good supply of housing for rental and purchase will still need to be realistically available to those on low incomes, including many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members. That will require a more substantial definition of affordable and low cost than is in the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: I praise the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish for his insightful amendments, particularly amendment No. 328, which is exactly right. I am keen on it because I fear that our readiness to consider social housing as a problem solver risks ghettoising the people who live in social housing. Much of the Bill makes the underlying assumption that we are helping the poor, and that recipients of social housing are some how disadvantaged in society so we must house them in a way they can afford. Although I use that language for effect, the truth is that we want to ensure that everyone in the UK, which is after all a first-world country, lives in something better than second-world accommodation. However, if there is not a proper balance, there will be ghettoisation. Amendment No. 328 makes a sincere and fairly informed effort to ensure that there is a decent mix of housing and a generation of sustainable communities.
I hope the Minister will accept the sentiments expressed by the amendment. If I were him, I would happily accept the amendment—that might be a reason for the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to cross the Floor, but I will talk about that later. Will the Minister tell us how we can ensure that the Bill and the Government’s general strategy on social housing does not create ghettos, but results in the type of mixed housing that amendment No. 328 would introduce?

Iain Wright: This is an incredibly important group of amendments and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish for raising the issues they cover. It is incredibly important that we ensure that all concerns are addressed.
Clauses 67 to 69 define the term social housing for the purposes of the Bill and regulation. The Committee will note that I, too, have tabled amendments in the group that I hope will make our intention clear and clarify the effects of the clauses.
The amendments in my name are partly a response to concerns raised in the House, during oral evidence sessions, and by stakeholders that the definition used could be perceived as permitting or appearing to permit the means-testing of social housing tenants on the basis of whether they can afford to buy or rent a home at market prices. Let me be clear: there is absolutely no intention on the part of the Government for the definition to have that effect. Concerns have been expressed that a Tommy Cooperesque moving of the hands will take place to ensure that it looks as though we have provided more social housing. That is not the intention either.
We are trying to provide 3 million new homes by 2020 and it is important that we provide 45,000 to 50,000 new social homes a year. There is no sleight of hand; we simply want to ensure that social homes are provided to those who need them and that they are regulated to the best standards. We are trying to be very clear about that, but there has been misinterpretation and the existing clauses 67 to 69 cause confusion. I accept that the definition is not perfect and could be made clearer, which is why we have proposed our amendments.
Linked with the problems and concerns about means-testing is the issue of security of tenure, which has been mentioned by stakeholders and by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. I want to clamp down on concerns about that as fast as I can because people should not have the impression that we are saying, “You are allowed a council house or social house, but once you get to a certain income and have been promoted you will be kicked out because it is all about means-testing and security of tenure”. That is not the case. People were concerned that the Bill would allow eviction if tenants reached a certain level of income and I want to reassure the Committee and wider stakeholders that that is not the case. Clauses 67 to 69 have nothing to do with security of tenure; they are meant to provide for social housing for the purposes of regulation. The security of tenure attached to a particular tenancy type is provided for in other legislation, for example the Housing Act 1988, which specifies the grounds on which landlords can seek possession. Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with regulation, does not change the 1988 Act; it does not alter the grounds for possession for any type of tenancy, so I hope that we can put to bed concerns about security of tenure.

Andrew Slaughter: I do not think that it needed to be said again, but as the issue was raised, the Minister is right to be so categorical. Given that the matter was raised by the Opposition, perhaps he will join me in condemning these words:
“Living in social housing should be viewed as a transition during which support is temporarily required for moving up the ladder to some form of shared or outright ownership”.

Iain Wright: That is a disgraceful phrase. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, the idea seems to be that those who have not succeeded in life are forced to live in social housing. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid, because we want balanced and mixed communities. The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned Mrs. Thatcher, who said that people who lived in a council house or who used a bus before the age of 30 were failures. That is an absolutely disgraceful attitude, which we need to move away from, and I am glad that the Government are not pursuing policies based on such attitudes.

Lembit Öpik: I am pleased ‘to hear that, although I will resist the temptation to vent my dislike of that dreadful woman.

Andrew Love: Go on. Let rip.

Lembit Öpik: I will not be baited.
I have one question for the Minister. Is he aware that it is regarded as a matter of course in much of the rest of Europe that people might choose to rent accommodation, rather than own it, and that is certainly the case to a great extent in Germany? Perhaps he can save us a little time by clarifying whether what he said about security of tenure was intended unequivocally to reaffirm that nothing in the Bill will weaken security of tenure as it was before we began debating the Bill. If that is correct, it is useful to have it on the record.

Iain Wright: I can reaffirm that. Let me extend the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish to cross the Floor by saying that he is more than welcome to come and join us—it is certainly much warmer on this side of the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about tenure, social housing and employment. My mother and father came from council houses, and until she died recently, my grandmother lived in the same house that she had lived in since 1950. Her whole estate had full employment, and my ambition during my time in this post is to see social housing again become synonymous with full employment. We can ensure that that happens by providing a range of support to deal with worklessness and other skills training. We have an exciting agenda, which will move us forward on that issue, and we are seeing those things happen again. Social housing is not seen as a last resort, and that is exactly what I want to avoid.

Alistair Burt: I did not intend to intervene, because I am conscious of the time, but I will do so briefly given the way in which the sitting has gone. The Minister will recall that during the evidence sessions and on Second Reading I discussed security of tenure, the importance of mixed communities and how we must address the fact that there is much more renting on the continent. Despite the good intentions of the Minister and the Government, he must be disappointed at the lack of social mobility that is becoming apparent and which has, alas, become a feature of the Government’s past few years in power. If he intends to realise his aspirations, he must surely tackle social mobility, because it has either become paralysed or it is going backwards, which it did not do during my party’s time in power.

Iain Wright: Social mobility is incredibly important—and it is what a progressive left-of-centre Government are all about. I do not want to labour the point, but the Prime Minister has set out his long-term ambition in terms of skills and this country’s ability to compete given the challenges facing the global economy. We are absolutely up for the challenges facing us and we are putting in place policies to achieve those aims. That is exactly what we should be doing in the new and difficult globalised situation in which we find ourselves.

Grant Shapps: I am also conscious of the time, but some of this cannot slip by unchallenged. My grandma lived in a council house for most of her adult life, and I used to visit her there before she died. She was proud of her home, and it is completely untrue that there is a policy out there to overturn such arrangements and kick people out of their homes. As the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush well knows, the policy document to which he referred was a proposal to the party, not the policy of the party. Such a claim simply cannot go on the record. Will the Minister accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire that social mobility is at a low as a result of 11 years of his Government’s policies?

Iain Wright: No. The Conservative party would have considered the policy. The fact that it is even up for consideration is disgraceful, let alone that it was ever thought of as policy. I want to crack on and address the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish about the amendment.
Amendment No. 327 covers part of the definition that we are not amending. Clause 68(b) states that low-cost rental homes should be let at sub-market rates. The amendment would go further, requiring that rents not only be below market rate but
“to such an extent that it is affordable to those on low incomes.”
We have already discussed at length, and no doubt will do so again, the concerns that were raised by our original definitions of low-cost rental and low-cost home ownership accommodation, which referred to its being allocated in accordance with rules designed to ensure that it is occupied by people who cannot afford to rent or buy at the market rate.
While amendment No. 328 seeks to omit such reference to affordability from the part of the definition referring to rules for allocating low-cost rental accommodation, amendment No. 327 seeks to introduce a stronger affordability criterion elsewhere. For the reasons outlined earlier, I do not think that including an affordability criterion as part of the defining characteristics of low-cost rental accommodation would essentially address the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members and stakeholders in respect of means-testing. I shall come on to that later as well.
My concern with the amendment is that, if it is taken to its logical conclusion, any social home that did not have a sufficiently low rent level would, in theory, actually be a market home and therefore not subject to regulation. That would decrease the number of homes regulated. Alternatively, the effect of the amendment could be that the definition limits rents to a certain level. I have some sympathy with that, but I do not think that the definition of social housing is the right place to set rent policy. We consider that the best way to do that is through strategic Government direction under clause 177, which we shall discuss, implemented by the regulator through the standard setting under clause 173.

Andrew Love: I agree with my hon. Friend on the need for flexibility and for deciding policy at the appropriate place, but does he accept that certainly in Greater London there is real concern about the rental policy that is being followed and the resulting affordability of accommodation? I do not think that it is appropriate to try to set rents through this Bill, but the issue must be kept under consideration. At the very least, we must accept that, for many people on lower incomes, paying the rent in socially rented accommodation in some of our urban centres is difficult.

Iain Wright: I disagree with my hon. Friend. He looks a bit shocked at that, but such discussions are within the scope of the Bill. When we reach clauses 173 and 177, I look forward to a robust debate on his point about rent setting, standards and directions. We can have that debate then.
Amendment No. 328 would revise clause 68(c), which covers the rules of allocation for low-cost rental. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, because his amendment is helpful. However, it is unnecessary, given the Government amendments that I hope to move shortly, which seek to resolve Members’ concerns.
We have discussed the matter longer than I imagined we would, but I am sympathetic to the proposal that rules should also promote mixed and sustainable communities. I strongly support such communities. However, there is not a precise legal term for mixed communities—I believe that my hon. Friend mentioned this—and I am not sure what the effect would be of including the requirement in the Bill. I keep referring to discussions that we will have on the clauses on standards. I suspect that the standards on lettings are probably a better place than a statutory definition of social housing to ensure that lettings contribute to mixed sustainable communities. To the extent that the amendment suggests that the rules should seek to ensure that scarce low-cost rental accommodation be made available to those who are not on low incomes or in housing need, it risks adding to shortages.
Amendment No. 329 would revise clause 69(3), which covers the definition of low-cost home ownership. Again, while I am sympathetic to the spirit in which the amendment was tabled, I have concerns about its practical effects. An additional concern is that it would require that homes be affordable for those on low incomes. We would all like to increase access to home ownership for those on low incomes, but, unfortunately, that is not always possible. A fundamental point is that low-cost home ownership schemes are additionally targeted at many groups that would be considered to be middle income. We have mentioned nurses, and other public sector key workers could be involved, as well as first-time buyers. We would not want low-cost home ownership aimed at those groups to be excluded from the definition of social housing.
The amendments in my name try to do things that are similar to what my hon. Friend’s amendments would do. The intention of the clauses is to define social housing in respect of its characteristics, a point that I made in debating with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. Those characteristics are that the allocation of new lettings is limited by some mechanism to those who need it most, and lettings are offered at below market prices, at least for low-cost rental, which those who need it can afford. That makes sense: if there is a limited resource—social housing will always be a limited resource because, obviously, there is a finite amount of public money—access must be prioritised.
On that basis, I propose three changes to address the concerns that have been raised. First, amendments Nos. 168 and 170 remove the words “of eligibility” after “rules”. Those words are not necessary to define social housing, and the amendments make it clear that the rules referred to are likely to cover allocation rather than eligibility. The word “eligibility” has a particular meaning in the context of social housing allocation legislation, and we did not want to risk further confusion.
Secondly, amendments Nos. 169 and 171 replace the words “occupied by” with “made available to”. They clarify that the rules referred to relate to the initial allocation of a home rather than the ongoing occupation of it. As I said earlier in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, I have always been clear that these clauses have absolutely no effect on tenants’ security of tenure or on the grounds on which landlords can seek possession of their homes.
Nevertheless, in spite of that assurance, I think that replacing “occupied by” with “made available to” better captures the point at which the rules would have effect.

Lembit Öpik: That probably resolves the issue that Shelter and I raised. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, what the Minister is saying is that there is no intention of challenging the existing tenure arrangements with that modification of the legislation. The assessment will be made at the start but will not be revisited thereafter.

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman’s understanding is absolutely right. That is the clear intention.
My third proposed change is in amendments Nos. 169 and 171, which refer to
“people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market”,
not
“people who cannot afford to buy or rent at market rates”.
We recognise that social housing is not just for those who cannot afford market-rate housing. It may also be for people who are vulnerable and need greater security of tenure than is offered by the market, or who need a form of specialised housing. I made that point in the oral evidence sessions last month.
The revised wording is consistent with clause 71, which deals with the Secretary of State making regulations to add to the stock covered by the social housing definition. The effect of the amendments is only to clarify what was always our intention in defining social housing.

Andrew Slaughter: Before my hon. Friend moves away from the definition of social housing, I have sympathy with his criticisms of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, and I agree that their intent is good. However, I do not think that the Minister’s definition, although it is better, goes far enough. As was pointed out, where there are attempts to evade what we would consider a reasonable definition of social housing—there is the example of 99 per cent. market rate, or there are the examples that I gave this morning—they would still come squarely within the definition of “not adequately served by the commercial housing market”.
Conservative councillors in the area that I represent have expressly said that they do not wish to see, in relation to housing, people who are in an income bracket below £50,000. The leader of the council in Hammersmith said, “We must stop our borough becoming a ghetto for the urban poor.” Fifty per cent. of households in my constituency have an income of below £20,000. It is a very divided community in income terms. How will the Minister ensure that there is not manipulation of the definition to ensure that not people at the bottom or in the middle, but only people at the top benefit?

Iain Wright: In the short term, that is exactly the sort of thing that the regulator could investigate. We will soon discuss cross-domain regulation. I know that there are concerns that local authorities and ALMOs will not be brought into the scope of the regulator straight away. However, the regulator could consider that sort issue and ensure that those concerns are addressed. I will go away and reflect on that, because my hon. Friend raises an important point. I hope that he is satisfied with that pledge.
Government amendment No. 172 simply corrects a reference in clause 70. It currently includes the phrase
“low cost shared ownership accommodation”.
Clause 69 refers to the concepts of
“low cost home ownership accommodation”
and “shared ownership arrangements” but not low cost shared ownership accommodation. The amendment therefore amends clause 70 to use the correct phrase, which is
“low cost home ownership accommodation.”
Under clause 241, registered social landlords registered with the Housing Corporation will automatically become non-profit registered providers under clause 241 when the existing system is confined to Wales only. Clause 76 provides that, unless specifically exempted, all property owned by such landlords will be social housing even if it does not meet the tests in clause 67. I thought it important to provide protection for existing housing stock of existing RSLs, as the Housing Corporation can in theory regulate it all.
I have already explained that one reason for providing a definition of social housing is that not all housing owned by existing RSLs is social housing. In clause 76, we have sought to provide exemptions for certain stock owned by existing RSLs who will become registered providers under clause 241, which we do not think requires the same degree of regulatory protection. Clause 76 includes a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to exempt certain existing stock owned by existing English RSLs from the definition of social housing. We thought that it would be helpful to add to the list in the statute where we were clear that a particular category of housing should not be social housing. The Housing Corporation does not regard, for example, student accommodation as social housing. Government amendment No. 177 means that existing accommodation owned by English RSLs made available only to students in full-time education or training will not be social housing.
I have deliberately spent some time trying to explain the intentions behind the amendments and clauses. I hope that I have reassured the Committee about our clear intention, which has not changed. I hope that, on that basis, the Committee will accept my amendments and that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who spoke to his amendments so eloquently, will feel that we have addressed his concerns and he can withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Gwynne: I am flattered by the approaches made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I shall have to decline his kind offer, though. He is certainly on board with the Labour Government’s housing agenda. I only wish that I could say the same about his colleagues on Stockport council, my experience of whom has put me off the Liberal Democrat cause for life.

Lembit Öpik: In which case I withdraw all the compliments that I paid to the hon. Gentleman earlier.

Andrew Gwynne: Which I happily accept for my next meeting.
The amendments were probing to clarify and place on record the direction of the Government’s thinking on these important issues, particularly the affordability of social housing to buy and to rent, and creating mixed communities. I am reassured that the Government are heading in the right direction, especially given their amendments, which go quite some way to reassuring me on a number of points. I welcome the Minister’s comments. I certainly shall not be crossing the Floor, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 168, in clause 68, page 32, line 1, leave out ‘for eligibility’.
No. 169, in clause 68, page 32, line 2, leave out from ‘is’ to end of line 3 and insert
‘made available to people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 68, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69

Low cost home ownership

Amendments made: No. 170, in clause 69, page 32, line 13, leave out ‘for eligibility’.
No. 171, in clause 69, page 32, line 13, leave out from ‘is’ to end of line 14 and insert
‘made available to people whose needs are not adequately served by the commercial housing market.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70

Shared ownership low cost rental

Amendment made: No. 172, in clause 70, page 32, line 42, leave out ‘shared’ and insert ‘home’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

Leaving the social housing stock: disposal with consent

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in clause 74, page 34, line 6, after ‘with’ insert ‘—(a) ’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 174 to 176.

Iain Wright: These are technical amendments to ensure that clauses 74 and 75 have their intended effects. Those clauses are part of a group of clauses that sets out circumstances in which homes can leave the social housing stock. As the Committee knows, clause 67(2) provides that once a dwelling is classified as social housing, it remains social housing until one of the events specified under these clauses takes place.
The clause covers homes that leave the social housing stock with consent. The regulator’s consent is described as being
“in accordance with Chapter 5.”
That chapter sets out the disposal consents regime. Government amendments Nos. 173 and 174 will add references to other provisions under which registered providers may require consent for disposals of land, namely section 171D of the Housing Act 1985 and sections 81 and 133 of the Housing Act 1988. Those provisions refer to homes subject to the preserved right to buy and homes originally owned by housing action trusts or local authorities, where the Secretary of State’s consent was required for the original disposal. Currently, those provisions require registered social landlords to seek the Secretary of State’s consent for subsequent disposals. However, we propose to amend the Bill to pass to the regulator responsibility for consenting to onward disposals by registered providers.
Government amendment No. 175 clarifies that a dwelling does not cease to be social housing if a disposal is made with the regulator’s consent as part of shared ownership or equity percentage arrangements. Under such arrangements, purchasers can buy their home in several stages. Each stage could, in theory, constitute a disposal with the regulator’s consent. However, the home will leave the social housing stock only when the purchaser buys the final share of his or her home. That event is covered in clause 72.
Government amendment No. 176 is a very technical amendment to clause 75, the current wording of which is somewhat ambiguous. It allows the regulator to direct that a specified dwelling is to cease to be social housing if it has
“ceased to be low cost rental accommodation or low cost home ownership accommodation”.
Under the strictest possible interpretation, it cannot cease to be low cost rental or low cost home ownership accommodation until it ceases to be social housing. The amendment will simplify the wording so that the regulator can direct that a specified dwelling is to cease to be social housing. I hope that I have clarified those matters and that the Committee accepts the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 174, in clause 74, page 34, line 6, at end insert—
‘(b) section 171D of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68) (consent to certain disposals of housing obtained subject to the preserved right to buy), or
(c) section 81 or 133 of the Housing Act 1988 (c. 50) (consent to certain disposals of housing obtained from housing action trusts or local authorities).’.
No. 175, in clause 74, page 34, line 6, at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to a disposal in pursuance of shared ownership arrangements or equity percentage arrangements.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75

Leaving the social housing stock: regulator’s direction

Amendment made: No. 176, in clause 75, page 34, line 13, leave out
‘, which has ceased to be low cost rental accommodation or low cost home ownership accommodation,’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Housing stock under Housing Act 1996

Amendment made: No. 177, in clause 76, page 34, line 32, at end insert—
‘( ) Exception 1A is accommodation made available only to students in full-time education or training.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 76, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

English bodies

Alistair Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 307, in clause 78, page 35, line 19, at end insert—
‘(e) a local housing authority under sections 1 and 2 of the Housing Act 1985, and
(f) a person controlled by a local housing authority.’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 308, in clause 79, page 35, line 24, column 2, after ‘landlord’, insert
‘or a person controlled by the landlord’.
Amendment No. 309, in clause 79, page 35, line 25, column 2, after ‘landlord’, insert
‘or a person controlled by the landlord’.
Amendment No. 310, in clause 86, page 38, line 7, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 311, in clause 86, page 38, line 9, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 312, in clause 86, page 38, line 11, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 313, in clause 93, page 39, line 34, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 314, in clause 93, page 39, line 34, at end insert ‘of social housing’.
Amendment No. 315, in clause 104, page 42, line 27, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 316, in clause 104, page 42, line 27, at end insert ‘of social housing’.
Amendment No. 317, in clause 104, page 42, line 29, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 318, in clause 104, page 42, line 29, at end insert ‘of social housing’.
Amendment No. 319, in clause 105, page 43, line 12, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 320, in clause 105, page 43, line 12, at end insert ‘of social housing’.
Amendment No. 321, in clause 105, page 43, line 13, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 322, in clause 105, page 43, line 13, at end insert ‘of social housing’.
Amendment No. 323, in clause 105, page 43, line 14, leave out ‘registered’.
Amendment No. 324, in clause 105, page 43, line 14, at end insert ‘of social housing’.
Amendment No. 337, in clause 111, page 45, line 8, at end insert ‘, or
(c) a local housing authority within the meaning of section 1 of the Housing Act 1985 (c. 68), or
(d) a person controlled by a local housing authority.’.
Amendment No. 338, in clause 163, page 65, line 20, at end insert—
‘(6) Exception 5 is that consent is not required by local housing authorities.’.
Amendment No. 325, in clause 195, page 74, line 19, at end add—
‘(b) shall not apply to local housing authorities and persons controlled by local housing authorities.’.
Amendment No. 339, in clause 223, page 82, line 25, at end insert ‘, or
(c) the registered provider is not a local housing authority or a person controlled by a local housing authority.’.
Amendment No. 340, in clause 225, page 83, line 40, at end insert ‘, or
(d) the registered provider is not a local housing authority or a person controlled by a local housing authority.’.
Amendment No. 333, in clause 235, page 89, line 10, at end add—
‘(7) The definitions of “subsidiary” in subsections 235(1) to (5) and “associate” in subsection 235(6) shall not apply to persons controlled by local housing authorities.’.
New clause 60—Regulatory powers: local housing authorities
‘(1) The regulator shall regulate local housing authorities and persons controlled by local housing authorities using powers provided under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
(2) The powers of the regulator as set out under sections 172 to 193 shall not apply to local housing authorities and persons controlled by local housing authorities.’.
Clause 110 stand part.

Alistair Burt: This is an important section, but I think that we will all try to be concise, because, having discussed the matter in an evidence session, we know what we are about. In tabling the amendments and in the sentiments behind them, I am delighted to be joined by the hon. Member for West Ham. We will be as succinct as possible in putting forward our arguments.
The Committee will be aware that a discussion is taking place in the housing world about domain regulation and whether all social housing should fall under the same process of regulation, as recommended in the Cave review. The amendment probes the Minister about the extent to which his discussions have proceeded with those involved in the housing world to ascertain whether the Bill could be used to bring together under one domain the necessary regulation. I am speaking principally from a brief presented by the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing, which supplements the evidence that they gave during the evidence-taking sessions.
The memorandum sets out all those who helped to put the note together:
“The policy position in this note has been shaped and agreed by the LGA Environment Board, a group of expert council officers in housing and corporate performance roles, and the CIH Policy and Practice Board, a group made up of senior figures from across housing associations, local authorities and ALMOs. No one in either of our memberships has expressed any disagreement with it. It is also supported by the National Federation of ALMOs, the National Housing Federation, National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations”,
and others from that part of the housing world. All those groups and people have significant day-to-day experience of what the effect of the amendment would be, and they believe that it is worth doing, is practical and can be done.
The memorandum continues:
“We welcome very much the Minister’s”—
the then Minister for Housing, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury—
“statement in her oral evidence session that ‘If there were consensus on the matter and everyone felt that we could get far enough fast enough, we would obviously be happy to look at amendments’ to enable regulation to operate domain-wide without the need for further primary legislation.”
It continues:
“We also agree with her that the regulation of council landlords could not operate identically to housing associations”. 
That point is covered in new clause 60 as a consequential amendment.
The key point that the LGA and the CIH make is that there exists sufficient recognition, across the housing sector, of the import of bringing regulation under one domain for the Government to risk introducing it into this legislation, if not by accepting the amendment, but by undertaking seriously to consider the possibility of introducing an equivalent amendment in the Lords. The LGA and CIH accept that there is a risk in amending legislation, and that it must be as right as possible. However, they and we point out that a significant number of Government amendments—118 in part 2—have been tabled which we will deal with fairly late in our proceedings. That is a lot of Government amendments to get through and it will take up time. We acknowledge that that is part of the process, but as so many Government amendments are to be considered, why not think seriously about my one, on which there is such strong consensus?
The LGA and CIH believe that there are
“serious risks in not providing for the establishment of domain regulation in the current legislation.”
They state that, first, the achievement of the objective set out in the Cave review and agreed by the Government will depend on further primary legislation, for which, as we all know, there is not always time. Secondly, they state:
“Even if time for further legislation were available in the 2008-09 session, it is impossible to see how it could be enacted, necessary secondary legislation put in place, and the regulator’s operating approach defined and started simultaneously with the start of the new regime for housing associations in April 2009. There must be a serious risk that the new regulator will be set up and commence operations with a focus on housing associations...and that it would struggle to develop the necessary equivalent competence and focus on local authority landlords.”
They believe that the risk of not including such regulation under the same domain at the same time outweighs the risk of accepting the amendment.
Finally, the LGA and CIH put forward a joint view as to how the regulation of local authority landlords should operate. First, they say:
“In line with the recommendations of the Cave Review, the approach, across the whole domain, should be customer-driven but deregulatory in character.”
Secondly, they state:
“Regulation should only apply to the landlord functions of councils and ALMOs”.
They believe the other strategic roles, allocations and private sector regulations should be included in the comprehensive area assessment, which is the import of new clause 60, and be taken up under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Thirdly, the say:
“The regulator's approach to information requirements, inspections and intervention must be consistent with the local performance framework”,
and fourthly:
“Regulation can and must respect other characteristics of councils as institutions.”
I know that the hon. Member for West Ham wishes to speak, and I have done my best to prÃ(c)cis the arguments. The bottom line is to ask the Minister what his intentions are. When we dealt with the matter in the evidence session, the general consensus was that if it could be achieved, it would be a good thing to do. Those closely involved have considered it further and think that it can be done. Having spoken this morning to someone representing the Local Government Association, I think that the Minister can be confident that his officials have not offered any chink of light that the Department believes it can be done, so I am not putting his officials on the spot. However, the view of those with whom the Government have negotiated in the housing sector is plainly that it can be done, and I hope that the Minister can give us some hope that an appropriate amendment can be made, if not here then in the other place.

Lyn Brown: May I ask your advice, Mr. Gale? I have only just realised that amendments to clauses 111, 163, 223, 225 and so on, seem to be part of the same argument as those in this group. I am happy to speak to them now, or I could do so later.

Roger Gale: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady must tell me which amendments she is talking about.

Lyn Brown: I have only just realised that the amendments to clauses 111, 163, 223, 225—most importantly, amendment No. 344—appear later on the agenda.

Roger Gale: We are going to discuss all the amendments that are grouped under clause 78, irrespective of the clause to which they are relevant. As and when the other clauses on the selection list are reached, there may be an opportunity for a stand part debate.

Lyn Brown: I will just go on, and you will rule me out of order if necessary, Mr. Gale.
The amendments are intended to ensure that meaningful protection is offered by the regulator of social housing to all tenants and residents living in social housing, as defined in clause 67. At present, the measures in the Bill do not give the same level of protection to tenants and residents living in social housing that is owned and/or managed by local authorities and ALMOs as they do to those whose landlord is a housing association or a private sector social housing manager. Standards should be the same for all providers. As the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire stated, that concept is supported by the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Local Government Association and the National Federation of ALMOs, the National Housing Federation, the National Federation of Tenant Management Organisations, the Tenant Participation Advisory Service, the Tenants and Residents Organisations of England and Shelter. All these organisations share the view that social tenants, whatever the type of landlord, deserve and should be able to expect the same protections.
[Sir George Youngin the Chair.]
The exclusion of local authorities and ALMOs from regulatory oversight by Oftenant would mean that not all tenants would get the same protection, and it might well send the message that tenants are not the primary consideration of the House and that a focus on tenants will not be the new regulator’s primary characteristic. The case for domain regulation was clearly made in the Cave review which—notably—is called “Every Tenant Matters”. That philosophy is at risk of being lost if half the social housing tenants have reduced levels of protection.
I cannot see that the inclusion of local authorities and ALMOs is problematic for the Government, as the Bill already enables different treatment for non-profit and profit-making providers within an overarching framework of standards and regulatory objectives that apply to all. The Bill could equally differentiate between the detailed treatment of local authorities and of ALMOs while realising ambitions for domain-wide objectives and standards. For example, there are differences between ALMOs, local authorities, housing associations and for-profit providers that mean that enforcement mechanisms would need to be different according to provider type. Domain regulation needs to fit into the local government performance framework and the proposed comprehensive area of assessment. Surely, that is no barrier, as it does not need to be dealt with in this legislation, and can be addressed later through protocols and terms of reference negotiated between Oftenant, the Audit Commission and other relevant bodies. If the Bill does not establish domain regulation, I understand that we would be dependent on further primary legislation, so I would welcome the Minister’s view on the matter. There is always intense competition for parliamentary time, and it is easy to see how future legislation to tidy up housing regulations could be pushed aside in favour of higher priorities.
I am concerned that if Oftenant begins its work dealing only with housing associations of whatever ilk, the organisation’s structure and mechanisms will be tailored, quite understandably, to working with housing associations rather than across the social housing sector. Many of my constituents would benefit from a simple and readily identifiable regulator that could deal with their problems and complaints in a uniform manner. The diversity and range of providers, particularly in areas of London such as my constituency, only makes this issue more important. Amendment No. 307 would allow housing associations and ALMOs to be subject to the new housing regulator—the Office for Tenants and Social Landlords—in a similar manner to other social landlords.
[Mr. Roger Galein the Chair]
I am still going—is that alright?

Roger Gale: If the hon. Lady is out of order, I will tell her.

Lyn Brown: Thank you, Mr. Gale. Amendments Nos. 308 and 309 are necessary to ensure that as well as local housing authorities, ALMOs are considered providers of social housing for the purposes of part 2, chapter 2. As an ALMO is not legally a landlord of a property, it is important that the Bill recognises that a person may operate social housing on behalf of a landlord eligible for regulation. That is again necessary to enable a single regulatory body to be set up for all social tenants. The deletion of clause 110 would complement this package of amendments, as it specifically ensures that local authority bodies and ALMOs are unable to register with Oftenant, and therefore prevents it from regulating them.
The amendment to clause 111 is designed to bring both local authorities and ALMOs within Oftenant’s remit, but, at the same time, to maintain the distinction between profit-making and non-profit-making landlords. That is crucial to ensure that later stages of the Bill do not conflict with the organisational and constitutional arrangements governing ALMOs and local authorities. Clause 163 simply ensures that Oftenant would not regulate the disposal of property and assets by local authorities that are already overseen by other appropriate bodies. The amendments to clauses 223 and 225 would ensure that if Oftenant’s remit extended to local authority properties, the rights of local authority tenants to make decisions about the management of their homes would be protected.
I recognise that the Government fully intend to extend the remit of the regulator to cover local authority and ALMO properties. It is important that allowance is made in the Bill for the different governance and financial arrangements within social housing provision, but I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestions outlined in the amendments as a mechanism to achieve full regulation of the social housing sector in the Bill. Even if the Bill included both ALMOs and local authority sectors within the remit of the regulator, it would still neglect a method of social housing provision that, especially in areas such as mine, provides considerable levels of housing.
Almost 6,000 families are housed in temporary accommodation in the London borough of Newham. Some £67 million per year of public money is spent paying private landlords in the form of housing benefit. That, as I am sure all hon. Members will appreciate, is a significant sum of money, and it affects a significant number of families. Those people, in the main, are among the most vulnerable in our communities. People in temporary accommodation are there because the council’s statutory duty to house them cannot be met within the current housing structure. It does not have enough council or housing authority homes to house those families. The families can remain in temporary accommodation for a number of years due to the acute shortage of social housing.
I would argue strongly that those properties should be subject to regulation by the regulator. A significant amount of public money is expended on purchasing temporary accommodation, but without the equivalent regulatory framework within which housing associations and local authorities operate. I believe that, if private landlords want to access the often lucrative temporary accommodation market on behalf of local housing authorities, they should be willing to accept the responsibilities that being a social landlord should involve.
As the Minister will appreciate, I have received many reports of extremely sub-standard temporary accommodation supplied by the private rented sector, and have heard of numerous cases of families desperate to secure alternative social housing, as their temporary accommodation is appalling. I appreciate that the use of temporary accommodation provides local authorities with flexibility, and that additional regulation may reduce the number of properties available for temporary accommodation, but I believe that the proposed provisions would help to cool the housing market in my area, and possibly enable more owner-occupiers to purchase property. I am surely not alone in believing that the vast sums of money spent on accommodation should ensure that the services provided are effectively scrutinised and of a certain quality.
To return to my previous point, standards should be the same for all providers of allocated housing from the public purse. Public money should mean public accountability, which is why I tabled amendment No. 344 to clause 109. It would add to the list of organisations eligible for registration with the regulator any provider of secure accommodation under section 7 of the Housing Act 1996. I accept that the amendments, particularly amendment No. 344, may be difficult to accede to on the hoof, but I urge the Minister, at the very least, to take those matters away and to consider them further.

Roger Gale: Just for the record, amendment No. 344 is not part of this group of amendments. Apart from that, the hon. Lady got through it extremely well. I will have a chat with her later.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I have one question for the Minister. The Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing—I might need to register an interest in the institute because I have some sort of membership with it, although I cannot remember which category it falls into—have made a convincing argument. In particular, they say that whether someone who is allocated social housing ends up in a housing association or in council property will often come down to chance and where a suitable home is available. They therefore ask, perfectly reasonably, what justification there can be for fundamentally different approaches to regulations. As all hon. Members will recognise, there are significant differences in governance and financial arrangements between local authorities in the different parts of the domain, but it is not impossible to overcome those to ensure that we have a similar system of regulation. Does the Minister intend to table an enabling amendment to allow Professor Ian Cole’s work to be considered in detail in secondary legislation?

Andrew Slaughter: There appears to be some consensus on the issue of cross-domain regulation, which I will endeavour to breach, although I might not succeed. I have subscribed to amendments Nos. 336 and 337, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and would have much the same effect as those tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I very much support the earliest possible extension of regulation to ALMOs and local authorities.
On Second Reading, I was highly critical of the performance of some RSLs in my constituency and elsewhere in west London and I may well be again later in our proceedings. However, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and I am pleased that the LGA and the National Federation of ALMOs, which has been in contact with me on these and similar amendments, are keen to suffer, or be rewarded with, an equivalent degree of regulation.
Rather that detaining the Committee with general arguments, I want to give a telling example from this week. As we have heard, the ALMO for the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has just been awarded one star and has poor prospects for improvement. That means that it has failed its inspection and that there is the prospect of the bulk of the decent homes money—£114 million—not being made available to improve 17,000 council homes in the borough. [Interruption.] Well, I will pursue the issue a little more because it shows that whatever our opinion of some RSLs—as I have said, they, like some ALMOs, are generally less democratically accountable than local authorities—the management of council housing is highly variable in its quality, and there is no less reason for it to be regulated in the generally excellent way proposed in the Bill.
I speak with some experience on this issue and I know, because I ran it, that Hammersmith and Fulham’s council housing department used to have an excellent record. The tenants went in deputation to the then Secretary of State to ask not to become an ALMO, because they wished to remain under local authority control. They did not take the nuclear option that people in Camden did, and they were right not to do so, because they saw the problems they would have accessing funding. Nevertheless, it was clear that tenants were happy with the subsequent arrangements. Funding was granted to the tune of £192 million, and the first tranche of £178 million has been paid on the basis that it was better to go ahead and have the necessary works done.
What has happened since has been a tragedy. The department has gone from a three-star ALMO to one that is in the worst possible position. Almost all of that has happened in the last 18 months. During that time the administration of the local authority and the managing board of the ALMO changed and fell into the hands of Conservative councillors, which has had the effect of marginalising the role of the tenant representatives. A combination of neglect and detrimental policies has meant that the quality of service provided to tenants has gone from excellent to appalling over a very short period.
The decent homes programme is more than a year behind schedule. The quality of work is, in many cases, appalling. There are 5 per cent. year-on-year cuts in the Budget, so matters that are not covered by the decent homes programme, such as the renovation of marginal areas, are not dealt with. Yet a surplus of more than £20 million has been accumulated. The purpose of that surplus is for non-state schemes, which are directed at providing housing for those on incomes that are two or three times the average. In other words, people who are on very low or no income are being asked to subsidise people who are on two or three times the average income.
It is also the case that any plot of land on estates, whether it be tenants’ halls or ball courts, is being sold off for commercial gain. Generally speaking, the only way in which council tenants and their assets are being regarded by the Conservative council is for the purposes of asset stripping.

Roger Gale: Order. I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman’s arguments very carefully. However, what we are listening to is a Second Reading debate. I have tried to allow quite a lot of latitude to hon. Members this afternoon, because these issues are complex and interrelated. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will indicate to me, and to the Committee, which particular amendment he is speaking to.

Andrew Slaughter: I am speaking to amendments Nos. 337 and 336, and explaining why it is necessary for local authorities and ALMOs to be regulated. I—

Roger Gale: Order. Before we go any further, amendment No.336 has not been called. Amendment No. 337 has, so perhaps we could stick to that.

Andrew Slaughter: I take your point, Mr. Gale, and I am bringing my remarks to a close. I often feel that concrete examples are better than theory when it comes to explaining why protection is needed for tenants in social housing. Frankly, the division between those in RSL housing and those in ALMO or council housing is not an official one and should be removed as quickly as possible.

Andrew Love: I will be brief, Mr. Gale.
When Sir Simon Milton appeared before us on behalf of the Local Government Association, he was glowing in his wish to have the regulator regulate local authorities as well as all the other sectors that are included in the Bill. He also accepted that there were some onerous provisions. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham has already said, provisions are needed in many local authority areas to ensure that tenants are properly protected. Sir Simon Milton accepted those onerous provisions and said that they were something that local government could accept straight away. Therefore, if the Minister gets up to say that it will be two years before the regulations take effect, we will be in the unusual position of having the organisation, which the Government does not want to regulate, asking to be regulated. While I accept that there may be issues that the Government will want to consider very carefully before they bring local government into the Oftenant regulations, it would be sensible to try to reduce the time scale for the measure.
The second important issue that must be raised is that Sir Simon Milton made it clear that the motivation for the Local Government Association’s decision was that it did not want to be excluded at the beginning of the set-up of Oftenant. It is important, for all the reasons we know, that the local authority voice and the ALMO voice should be heard within Oftenant from the word go, or as early as possible. If the LGA is not to be part of the regulatory coverage from the beginning, I hope that the Minister will suggest ways in which it may be consulted on how Oftenant should develop until it is part of the process.

Iain Wright: I have detailed briefing notes on the amendments, but I thought that I would spare the Committee my reading them out, because—hon. Members will shout me down if I am wrong—I have interpreted the amendments as being more about probing than amending the Bill.
 Lyn Brown indicated dissent.

Iain Wright: It is interesting, Mr. Gale, that my hon. Friend does not show impatience with your good self when seeking your advice—quite rightly, too—but she is certainly showing her impatience with me.
The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire himself said that we would be taking a risk in accepting the amendments—or something along those lines. That is at the heart of my opposition to them and to the general movement on cross-domain regulation. Accepting the amendments would mean taking a somewhat premature decision on defining the framework under which the future regulation of local authority housing management functions would operate. The amendments would also run the risk of introducing a flawed framework that fails to provide what we all want: a sensible and effective regulatory regime.
Let me repeat our firm intention. Our long and medium-term aims are for a single regulatory framework for existing registered social landlords and local authority landlords of social housing. I cannot be much clearer than that. However, I think that hon. Members appreciate that bringing local authority landlords within the regulatory framework is a complex job.

Alistair Burt: I want to see whether we can help. I do not think that we need a line-by-line repudiation of the amendment, although the hon. Member for West Ham may speak for herself. Time scale is at the nub of this issue; I use that wonderful political phrase, “If not now, when?” People want to know precisely what the Minister means by the long and medium-term. We tabled the amendment on behalf of the housing sector, and there is strong consensus in the sector and in this Committee that the relevant conditions already exist. What is the Minister’s time scale? If it is too long-term and too much in the distance, that will cause concern. People wonder whether the medium term might include the other place.

Iain Wright: We have been clear in saying that the time scale is within two years. People talk about two years, but I do not expect it to take that long, because there is no policy difference or philosophical aspect on which we disagree. We are simply trying to overcome practical, governance-related obstacles. That is why we have created an advisory group to advise on this matter. I may have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on his question, “If not now, when?” It will be when the advisory group considers that the barriers have been overcome. Before I talk more about the group, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Lyn Brown: Has the Minister considered my point about setting up an organisation and establishing it with the housing associations? Slotting local authorities and the private sector into that system might cause problems, given that organisations tend to mould themselves to their tasks. Bringing in others at that later point might cause difficulties.

Iain Wright: In order to have the seamless transition from the Housing Corporation to the new regulatory body, the regulator will work very closely with organisations such as the LGA. I do not want to box the regulator in, but given that our policy intention is to have cross-domain regulation, it makes sense to ensure that, when the time comes, and when the barriers that the advisory group have been set up to look at are overcome, we move to that cross-domain regulation as quickly as possible.
On the advisory group: I want to give a flavour, I do not want to go over it amendment by amendment, giving technical reasons why I oppose them, but it is important to give hon. Members some reassurance about what we are looking at. The advisory group is chaired by Professor Ian Cole from Sheffield Hallam university.

Angela Smith: I know him.

Iain Wright: A good Sheffield MP—I am glad that my hon. Friend knows him. We have talked about stakeholders, and they contribute to the process. The advisory group includes representatives from all the major stakeholders, including the LGA, as well as a number of individual local authorities, the Housing Corporation, the Chartered Institute of Housing and other umbrella groups that represent the interests of tenants—the Tenants and Residents Organisations of England for example. I understand that the panel has held its first meeting and is due to meet again in February to discuss what are known as first order issues.
I do not want to pre-empt the work of the advisory group. There are complex matters involved that I cannot sum up easily in this debate. However, I have been advised, and must convey several points to the Committee.
The panel has identified three issues of what it calls first order importance: matters that it wants to consider in depth over the next few weeks. Those are: standards; information requirements; inspections and their triggers; and intervention and enforcement powers. I hope that reassures hon. Members. Work is ongoing, there are practical obstacles, and those are being looked at by the advisory group. However, I am well aware of the frustration among stakeholders that we have not provided for cross-domain regulation as the Bill stands.
Let me point out to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and others, that to rush to legislate and to have that risk when we still need to determine practical solutions to a range of complex and difficult issues, would be foolhardy and benefit no one. It would be detrimental to tenants of local authorities. I want to reassure colleagues that we are not dragging our heels or seeking to over-complicate matters. I would like to see the measure brought in as quickly as possible, as soon as the advisory group is satisfied that the barriers have been overcome. I hope that that reassures hon. Members.

Alistair Burt: When I saw the brief from the Local Government Association and the Chartered Institute of Housing, I knew that when it got to the paragraph dealing with “a degree of risk”, officials’ eyes would light up. I knew how the brief would then be constructed—talk about giving something away. Those who have put the case to us have been honest in their approach, wanting to take things forward and recognising the risk, but also recognising the risks of not moving at the same speed. Of course I accept what the Minister has to say. I know that the advisory panel has had its first meeting, and I wish it well.
I am slightly puzzled as to why, between colleagues who know the area well, there appears to be a gulf between those who believe that the conditions are right now and think that it can be done, and those responsible for making the change who think that it may be as far as two years away. I am genuinely puzzled by that. I have no wish to press the amendments to the vote, although I may return to the matter on Report from the Back Benches. I would like those who have been dealing with us to look at what the Minister has said and perhaps press a further case to try to move him on the issue.
For the avoidance of any doubt, and to help the future progress of the Committee, I say to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush that we get his point. He does not like Hammersmith and Fulham council, and he is engaged in a very long campaign against it, despite its local electorate voting Conservative. Amusing though his local pamphlets are to the Committee, and although we know about the rhetoric and understand his points, it may get a bit tedious if he takes every opportunity to beat those concerned over the head with the same stuff. For the sake of progress, may I say that my hon. Friends and I take his point, although we do not agree with him. We understand where he is coming from. No one in the area would say that he was not a doughty opponent of the council, wrong-headed though he may be. Nevertheless, perhaps if we could from now on be spared hearing the same stuff again, that would help us to move on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman,being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 79 and 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81

Membership

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

George Young: I should like to press the Minister about clause 81(1)(a), in the light of yesterday’s statement about which key regulators are to be subject to pre-appointment hearings by Select Committees. I see from the list, to which I shall refer in a moment, that the regulator in question—one of the most important we have—will not be subject to such a hearing.
By way of background, the Committee may know that in the Green Paper “The Governance of Britain”, which was published in July, the Government proposed to increase parliamentary scrutiny of appointments to certain posts, by way of pre-appointment hearings with the relevant Select Committee. Yesterday the Government published the list of which regulators would be subject to the process. I have here the letter that the Minister for the Cabinet Office sent to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, which says:
“Since publication of the Green Paper, we have consulted widely across Government to identify posts that would be suitable for pre-appointment hearings. In keeping with the principles in the Green Paper, we have focussed on posts which exercise statutory or other powers in relation to protecting the public’s rights and interests.”
It continues:
“As a result the final list comprises senior ombudsmen, HM Chief Inspectors and key regulators.”
The Bill as it stands states that
“The regulator shall consist of—
(a) a person appointed by the Secretary of State as chair”
but not that they will be subjected to the process in question. My anxiety at the exclusion of the social housing regulator was heightened when I checked which regulators would be subject to the process. They are the Commission for Local Administration in England, the chair of the Statistics Board, the chairman of the Office of Rail Regulation and the chair of the Office for Legal Complaints, as well, of course, as the chair of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. It is difficult to argue that the social housing regulator will not have more of an impact on people’s lives than the regulators whose names I have just read out.

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case, but of course all the regulators that he has mentioned already exist. Has he inquired whether the absence of the housing regulator from the list simply reflects the fact that the Bill has not yet been enacted, so that the post does not yet exist?

George Young: That is an ingenious and heroic defence of the Minister, were he minded to accept it, but the Department was asked in July which posts would be suitable for pre-appointment hearings and the decision was announced yesterday. Yesterday, the existence of the regulator in question was a matter in the public domain; a Bill is under consideration. The fact that the regulator had not yet been appointed was not a reason to exclude it from the list of posts to be subject to scrutiny in future.
If the Minister uses, if I may put it in such terms, the Raynsford defence—[Interruption.]—or the Greenwich defence, that if the Bill had already been passed the regulator would have been included in the list, I shall accept that. However, I suspect that the Government do not propose to subject the post to pre-appointment scrutiny. If that is the situation, perhaps between now and Report, the Minister could go back, get the necessary clearance, and then tell the House that the social housing regulator, whenever he is appointed, will be subjected to the process to which other key regulators are exposed, and that he would have to go to the Communities and Local Government Committee for a pre-appointment hearing.

Iain Wright: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that line of questioning—he made a persuasive case. I can update the Committee on the appointment of the chair. The job description has been approved internally by the Minister for Housing. A job advert will be published in all appropriate press, including specialist press, in February, with a view to a closing date for applications around March and an appointment in May. The process is ongoing.
I am not going to hide behind the Raynsford, or Greenwich, defence. The right hon. Gentleman made an important point and, with his permission, I shall go away and look at the issue and clarify it, because it would be completely applicable for the chair of Oftenant to be subject to the kind of scrutiny he talked about. I shall certainly do that if he allows me.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 82 to 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

Fundamental objectives

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in clause 86, page 38, line 11, leave out subsection (7).
Now we come to the meaty part of the Bill. It sets out the fundamental objectives for the regulator and defines precisely the matters that will be the main focus of regulation. It is an important part of the Bill. The amendment would remove subsection (7), which is objective 6. It says:
“Objective 6 is to encourage registered providers of social housing to contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of the areas in which the housing is situated”.
I have no problem with that objective. We all recognise that the concept of place shaping, which was a focus of the Lyons review, is an important part of the agenda for local authorities and others who have a role to play. We want providers of social housing to engage in discussions with local authorities and others, and to make a contribution.
The reason why I tabled the amendment is that I do not understand how the objective can be regulated. If one looks at the recommendations of the Cave review, one will see that Cave had reservations about the feasibility of regulating that level of activity. In fact, there are a number of passages in the Cave review that indicate clearly a lack of sympathy for giving the regulator powers to regulate such activity. Paragraph 2.59, on the issue of policy passporting, states:
“The practice of securing the implementation of a range of government policies through the regulatory system is an endemic feature of the present arrangements — these are the policy costs of regulation. It is the main cause of ‘regulation creep’ and strongly discouraged by the Better Regulation Commission...imposing a stream of policy burdens on providers without regard to the costs is poor regulation”.
Paragraph 2.81 states:
“The review also concludes that there is considerable scope for reducing the burden of regulation, both the policy costs and the administrative costs which it imposes. Regulation and inspection should be more closely aligned to tenants’ wishes for good quality services. This should be done in a way which recognises the role of social housing providers in assisting the delivery of local government’s strategic goals”.
The clincher is the third section that I shall quote. Paragraph 4.34 states:
“It is not, in the review’s view, the role of the regulator to regulate the place shaping activities in which local authorities engage with both housing providers and many other organisations”.
That seems clear, so I am troubled that subsection (7) expresses a clear commitment to regulate the activities of social housing providers in respect of their contribution
“to the environmental, social and economic well-being of the areas in which the housing is situated.”
If we think about how that regulatory task could be performed, what on earth would be the measures of performance? At the level at which Cave was sympathetic, I can clearly see that it is right to expect the provider of housing to engage in a discussion with the local authority, but in terms of actual contribution and outputs, let alone outcomes, I cannot conceive of a sensible framework that would allow a regulatory system to operate that would assess the contribution that those providers had made, other than simply asking the question, “Have they discussed this matter with the local authority?” That would be purely a matter of consultation and it would hardly be appropriate for a complex, regulatory procedure.
Furthermore, I can see a real problem of a very heavy regulatory burden if the regulator tried to put in place procedures for measuring the extent to which individual providers of social housing were engaged in the process, what their performance had been and what the outcomes and outputs of that performance were.
There is a serious risk of regulation creep, which is precisely what Cave warned against, and also of an overly heavy regulatory burden being imposed. The reason for tabling the amendment is to suggest that it might be appropriate to find ways of reflecting the clear recommendation of the Cave review that registered social landlords and providers of social housing should be engaged in constructive discussion on this issue, but that they should not be subject to a burdensome regulatory regime. That is my objective and I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment, which is in line with the Cave recommendations that prompted the establishment of the regulator.

Lembit Öpik: We very much support the amendment, but we have a few observations to make. First, however, has anyone else noticed the irony of the naming of the Cave review, or is it just me? [ Interruption. ] Perhaps it is just me. There is another review, I think; the Hill report on social housing. [ Interruption. ] “Hill Street Blues”, perhaps.
I support the amendment because it forms part of a list, which no doubt has not escaped the attention of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. Also, the wording of clause 86(7) contradicts one of the arguments that the Minister has used to ask us to withdraw various amendments. He said that some of our amendments have been too vague or not well defined. Surely subsection (7) falls right into that category. It says that the aim is
“to contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of the areas”.
That is open to the broadest interpretation. How does one improve the “well-being” of an area? To elect a Liberal Democrat council would be one way that comes immediately to mind. [Interruption.]I am just getting my own back on behalf of the underdogs on the Opposition side of the Committee, Mr. Gale.
Perhaps it is to do with investing in social networks. Indeed, anything could come under that heading. I suspect that the phrase as it stands could easily be abused to enforce just about any dogmatic political intention of either a local authority or a Minister. If the Minister is intent on keeping this subsection, will he please desist from criticising us for tabling amendments that he says are ill-defined or too vague?

Iain Wright: My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is correct. This is an important clause, because it clearly sets out the regulator’s objectives. Amendment No. 40 would remove the regulator’s sixth objective, outlined in subsection (7), which is
“to encourage registered providers of social housing to contribute to the environmental, social and economic well-being of the areas in which the housing is situated.”
I accept that that is perhaps the regulator’s most controversial objective, but from speaking to tenants organisations about it, I have found that they are keen on it, so I shall stress why it is necessary. All hon. Members will appreciate that good housing is vital to an area’s well-being, and landlords, especially those with large concentrations of stock in a particular area, have an important role to play. Landlords of social housing need to be good neighbours, so as well as improving homes, RSLs and others need to improve neighbourhoods. Giving the regulator an objective on the landlords’ wider role in the community means that when the regulator performs its functions, such as setting standards, it will be able to recognise and take into account landlords’ wider activities in their area. Without such an objective, the regulator might decide that landlords would and should operate more economically or efficiently if they limited their activities to the core landlord role, without any regard for the well-being of the area in which their housing is situated. Indeed, the regulator might even set standards that sought to discourage such activity or ignored the benefits, and we all know, because we heard it in the oral evidence sessions from the National Housing Federation, that RSLs currently provide an enormous amount of wider, voluntary well-being activity. I cannot believe that the perverse consequences of removing that provision are what my right hon. Friend and the sector would want, so I shall offer some reassurance.
An objective to “encourage” contribution to local well-being does not necessarily mean that the regulator will regulate RSLs’ voluntary activities. In considering how to encourage a contribution to the well-being of an area, the regulator will need to consider how best to achieve its objective, already bearing in mind its 10th objective, which is
“to regulate in a manner which—(a) minimises interference, and (b) is proportionate, consistent, transparent and accountable.”
However, the regulator will also be able to set standards requiring providers to co-operate in certain ways with local authorities in local place-shaping, but clearly that contribution must be proportionate to landlords’ holdings in the area.

Nick Raynsford: I accept the principal thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument; the issue is important and, rightly, it should not be totally excluded. The thrust of my argument, he will recall, was not that I do not regard the issue as important, but that it is inappropriate to regulate. How does he envisage a regulatory regime ascertaining whether a registered social landlord has met the objective? I cannot for the life of me see how a regulatory regime can do anything other than either simply tick a box, which is not the regulation that we want, and I wonder whether it will consult the local authority, or introduce a huge series of separate measures that would be completely disproportionate and burdensome.

Iain Wright: Far be it from me to set what the regulator will want to do, but I imagine that involvement with the local community, by ensuring a contribution to the local strategic partnership and the sustainable communities strategy, and by having a real role, perhaps by participating in an appropriate local authority scrutiny role, will be important. The regulator will want reassurance that registered providers are going to engage in general well-being, such as the LSP and the sustainable communities strategy.
To some extent, I shall now argue against myself, because I have mentioned the importance of the measure and of standards, but conversely just because a regulator has a particular objective—on this occasion to encourage a contribution to local well-being—it does not necessarily follow that he has to set standards. I look forward with some relish to considering clause 173 on standards. At this point, however, standards are the regulator’s most powerful tool, but not the only one. I genuinely imagine that, like the Housing Corporation, the regulator will have other ways to encourage voluntary activity, such as helping to spread good practice, commissioning research and so on. I go back to my earlier point, which is that it will ensure that objective 6 is considered in the roundest possible sense. It will ensure that it is not just focused on the core housing function, that it does not consider efficiency and economy at the expense of other things, and that having a wider contribution to that place-shaping is important. That is why objective 6 is a crucial part of the regulator’s activity. On that basis, I hope that my right hon. Friend withdraws his amendment.

Lembit Öpik: The Minister has more or less covered all the points, but there remains the question of the non-specific nature of the edict. To be quite serious, he has criticised other amendments that have been tabled as being not very specific. How does he square that with the fact that the clause is open to the widest interpretation? I do not have an issue with that in a sense, but I have an issue with the Government on the one hand saying that they do not want certain amendments because they are not specific enough, and on the other hand defending such a clause.

Iain Wright: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but those issues will be interpreted by the regulator. I keep coming back to objective 10, which is important. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which the regulator will spend 90 per cent. of his time on objective 6. He needs to minimise interference, and I think that I have set out in a relatively clear manner what I would imagine the regulator doing with regard to this in terms of participation in local strategy partnerships and ensuring participation in the sustainable community strategy. I hope that that reassures him.

Nick Raynsford: I shall withdraw the amendment, because I want to make progress and there will be further opportunities to discuss this. However, I must make it clear that I am not convinced by my hon. Friend’s case. In the first place, he has not provided a basis for an understanding of how this regulatory function can be performed, and I have very considerable worries that it will either be the worst form of tokenistic tick-box exercise—has the landlord talked to the local authority?; tick, satisfied—or, if it tries to do more, it will end up imposing a completely unreasonable and disproportionate burden by trying to assess the degree and effectiveness of the engagement, the output and the outcomes. Frankly, many registered social landlords have stockholdings of perhaps only a handful of properties in any individual area, and the idea that the regulator should measure the degree in each area to which those bodies have engaged and produced the outcomes required will become a nightmare of bureaucracy.
There is a serious issue to consider and I take comfort from my hon. Friend’s statement that he desires simply to promote engagement. That is exactly what Cave said, but I remind him that the Cave review very emphatically said:
“It is not, in the review’s view, the role of the regulator to regulate the place-shaping activities in which local authorities engage with both housing proprietors and many other organisations.”

Iain Wright: I am conscious of my right hon. Friend’s concerns. I will say two things, one of which I have mentioned already; the other is in response to his point about Cave. First, I reiterate that the regulator would, I imagine, look at any sort of contribution towards economic, social and environmental well-being that would be proportionate to the registered provider’s holdings in a particular area, and would have to take a view on it. He rightly says that a handful of properties could be involved.
Secondly, Cave proposed a statutory duty to co-operate with local authorities in terms of a place-shaping role. I suggest that that is the best possible route to go down without imposing too many onerous duties on the registered providers. Does he agree?

Nick Raynsford: I take comfort in that, because it seems to strike the right balance between seeking to encourage the range of housing providers to engage with local authorities in the place-shaping function and ensuring that they do so. However, as I said, the Bill currently puts that priority on an equal basis with other objectives. It does not say that it is simply encouraging engagement, but, rather, that it is one of the objectives, particularly as it is listed in clause 173 as one of the standards that the regulator may set out. Therefore, we are in serious danger of producing something either tokenistic or excessively burdensome. We must be careful about that, but I take comfort in the fact that my hon. Friend is keen to avoid excessively burdensome regulation. I hope that between now and the completion of our discussions, we can find a way to achieve that objective. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lembit Öpik: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in clause 86, page 38, line 23, at end insert—
‘(12A) The regulator shall pursue these objectives in relation to landlords and their tenants in all cases where the tenants are in receipt of public funds.’.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable the regulator to pursue the objectives in clause 86 in relation to landlords and their tenants in all cases in which the tenants receive public funds.
In essence, we are trying to test the principle that if public funds are involved in paying a landlord, the landlord carries with that money a responsibility to honour the tenets of the clause. They buy into a responsibility that connects them with the standards we would expect in the public sector. It seems reasonable to us that tenants should expect the same benefits of protection and regulation from a private landlord as they would from social housing in public hands. If landlords do not like that, they do not have to take tenants who are in receipt of benefits, but I expect that most landlords would be fair enough and would go along with it.
What is the Minister’s perspective on the intention in the amendment to ensure that when public funds are being paid to private landlords they have a duty to fulfil the same regulations as if they were in the public sector?

Iain Wright: I am keen to criticise the hon. Gentleman on the grounds of vague and ambiguous. I am not entirely certain what he means by “in receipt of public funds”. I assume that it is meant to cover all tenants in respect of housing benefits, though, as drafted, I think that it could also include things such as child benefit, unemployment benefit and child tax credits, which could be massive.
Tenants receiving public funds will have different landlords: registered social landlords, local authorities, private rented sector landlords, even some unregistered housing associations such as the Church Commissioners. However, the Bill only provides for the regulator to have powers over us and over any providers who register voluntarily.

George Young: Is that true? In light of the debate we had earlier, I understood the Minister to have said that organisations that did not register would none the less come under the umbrella of the social housing regulator because of the objectives in clause 86.

Iain Wright: No, in respect of the earlier point about the philanthropic organisation, it would have a choice as to whether to register voluntarily. I hope that is clear.

George Young: If the organisation did not voluntarily register, would it not come under the embrace of the social housing regulator?

Iain Wright: No, it would not. I hope that clarifies the matter.

George Young: It clarifies the matter, but I am not sure that it is consistent with the debate that we had earlier on the clause. Closer examination of the record will doubtless reveal who is right.

Iain Wright: It is clear to me what I think, but let me look back at the earlier clause and confirm it to the right hon. Gentleman.

George Young: The Minister was clear. He said that the characteristics of the operation defined whether it came within the embrace of the social housing regulator. He has now said that it is not the characteristics, but whether the organisation voluntarily registers that is important. If so, that would have allayed some of the concerns that I expressed in our earlier debate.

Iain Wright: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point about characteristics, but a strategic decision by an organisation to provide social housing would tend to require a degree of subsidy. It would be entirely for that philanthropic organisation to make the strategic decision as to whether it wished to be regulated—I hope that I am clarifying the point, although I suspect from the right hon. Gentleman’s face that I am not. I can check what I have said and confirm it, but that is certainly my clear intention as regards what the regulator will do.
Extending the regulator’s powers to cover various things, where that was dependent on whether the tenant received public funds, would require a significant set of amendments to the regulator’s other powers. It would not be enough merely to give the regulator objectives in relation to the relevant landlords, because it could exercise its powers only in relation to registered providers.
Indeed, without amending the regulator’s other powers to allow them to be exercised in relation to unregistered providers, there is a danger that the amendment could backfire and further limit the regulator’s ability to regulate registered providers, with the result that the regulator could act in relation to such providers only where they accommodated tenants in receipt of public funds.
Even if a way were found for the regulator to regulate the landlords of all tenants in receipt of benefits, the result is likely to be a very unlevel playing field. Private and local authority landlords would have to operate under two systems: one for tenants who were on benefits and another for those who were not. I understand the point that would naturally be raised that we do not have cross-domain regulation at the moment, but it would be a permanent feature of the system.
The degree of regulation would change over time—for example, if a tenant started or ceased to claim benefits. We have spent a lot of time discussing security of tenure, and the amendment could open up a can of worms in that respect. If the intention is to extend the regulator’s powers to all landlords with tenants who are in receipt of housing benefit, that could act as a major deterrent to private sector landlords to let to tenants on benefits—we discussed something similar in relation to an earlier provision. That would further increase the pressure on social landlords’ limited stock, and I do not believe that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants.

Lyn Brown: This relates to the bit of the amendment that I tabled earlier, which was not addressed, and which might have got moved later, but which is not going to get moved later. What I am really saying is will the Minister seriously consider how we will provide tenants in the private sector who are paid for from the public purse with the safeguards that will be afforded to tenants in the social rented sector in one way or the other? I obviously have huge sympathy with what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is attempting to do, because that is what I attempted to do in amendment No. 2. I am looking for some comfort and some reassurance that consideration will be given to what we might be able to do about those vulnerable tenants.

Iain Wright: I can do no better than refer back to the private sector rented review, which I mentioned earlier. I set out in some detail the review’s terms of reference and what we hoped to achieve through it. I hope that that provides some comfort, because my hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that tenants from all sectors should have the best possible service.
I want to be brief, so I hope that I have made my point clear for the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Lembit Öpik: The Minister has made a valid point about the drafting of the amendment; it probably would have unintended consequences. I understand his concern about the problem of squeezing the private sector, providing a disincentive for it to take in people on benefits, and his concern that there could be a negative effect on housing stock. On this occasion, therefore, I am willing to accept his proposal and to consider the matter further. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members recognise that the last thing that we want is a two-tier system, with unregulated and low-quality housing stock in the private sector and much higher-quality housing stock at a lower price in the public sector.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 87 to 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

Financial assistance

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 94, page 40, line 13, at end insert ‘or giving a guarantee or indemnity.’.
This is a technical amendment that aims to draw a clear distinction between the two types of financial assistance that the regulator can give. Under subsection (1), the regulator can give financial assistance for research, guidance, best practice or for
“facilitating the management of social housing by tenants.”
In practice, that gives the regulator powers to run programmes similar to the innovation and good practice programme and the tenant empowerment programme, which are currently run by the Housing Corporation. Financial assistance under subsection (1) does not require the Secretary of State’s consent.
Under subsection (3), the regulator can give financial assistance to a registered provider by way of a loan, a guarantee or indemnity and only with the consent of the Secretary of State. That type of financial assistance is intended to support a provider in serious financial difficulties through short-term provisions, while longer-term plans are put in place. Given the large sums of money and the difficult circumstances that are likely to be involved, Secretary of State consent with Treasury approval is an essential safeguard.
At present, subsection (2) allows financial assistance to be given by grant, loan, defraying expenditure or
“in any other way except purchasing loan or share capital of a body corporate.”
The amendment will further limit how assistance can be given under subsection (2) to prevent the regulator
“giving a guarantee or indemnity.”
That is an additional protection to ensure that the powers of the clause cannot be used inappropriately. We cannot foresee a circumstance in which a guarantee or indemnity would be an appropriate way to fund research, guidance or best practice.
I hope the Committee will accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 95 to 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103

Direction to the HCA

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 179, in clause 103, page 42, line 21, at end insert—
‘( ) A direction may not prohibit grants to a registered provider in respect of discounts given by the provider on disposals of dwellings to tenants.’.
The clause enables the regulator to direct the Homes and Communities Agency not to give financial assistance under clause 22 to a registered provider. The amendment will qualify that for financial assistance in respect of a repayment to registered providers of the discount that they are obliged to provide when they sell a property to a tenant who is exercising the right to acquire, or which they choose to sell to a tenant who had the right to acquire in respect of a different property. The right to acquire applies to almost all social housing owned by registered providers for which grant has been paid after 1997.
Without the amendment, the registered provider would be obliged to sell at a discount without being reimbursed where one of the specified events in clause 22 has occurred. Reimbursement has been a principle of the right to acquire since it was introduced in the Housing Act 1996 and that has been the clear understanding of grant recipients when applying for and receiving social housing and other grants. At present clause 22 gives the agency simply the power to make such grants. We will be tabling an amendment to part 1 to impose a duty on the agency to repay the discounts on such disposals, just as there is a duty on the Housing Corporation to pay such grants under sections 20 and 21 of the 1996 Act. This is an important, yet technical, amendment, which clarifies matters regarding financial assistance and I hope that hon. Members will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 103, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104

Collection

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 180, in clause 104, page 42, line 26, leave out ‘relating’ and insert
‘which it has reason to believe is or may be in the person’s possession and which relates’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 181, in clause 104, page 42, line 29, at end insert—
‘(1A) A requirement may be imposed on a person other than the body to which the document or information relates only if—
(a) the body has been required to provide the document or information but has failed to do so, or
(b) the regulator thinks that the body is unable to provide it.’.
No. 182, in clause 104, page 42, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
No. 183, in clause 105, page 43, line 12, leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘the’.
No. 184, in clause 105, page 43, line 12, after ‘provider’ insert
‘to whose affairs or activities the documents or information relates’.
No. 185, in clause 105, page 43, line 13, leave out second ‘a’ and insert ‘the’.
No. 186, in clause 105, page 43, line 14, leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘the’.
No. 187, in clause 105, page 43, line 23, at end insert—
‘( ) Proceedings for an offence under section 104(5) or (6) may be brought only by or with the consent of—
(a) the regulator, or
(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions.’.

Iain Wright: Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 limit the regulator’s data collection power. Clause 104 permits the regulator to collect information relating to registered providers or other persons. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire will be pleased to hear that that power is modelled on an existing one that is available to the Housing Corporation under section 30 of the Housing Act 1996.
Amendment No. 180 limits the regulator’s ability to require a person to provide information or documents which it reasonably believes is in the person’s possession. Amendment No. 181 limits the regulator’s ability to require information or documents from persons other than the registered provider to which the information or documents relates. The regulator will only be able to ask for information from such other persons if the relevant registered provider has not provided the documents or information, or if the regulator believes that the document or information cannot be provided by the registered provider.
As the consequences of failing to comply with the regulator’s requirement to provide information under the clause include criminal prosecution and the exercise of one of the regulator’s enforcement powers, such as an enforcement notice or monetary penalty, it is important that those powers should be no wider than is strictly necessary. As currently drafted, the regulator’s powers would be wider than those of the Housing Corporation, which we do not believe is necessary. The effect of amendments Nos. 180 and 181 is to prevent so-called fishing expeditions among registered providers for information or documents relating to that provider, and protect persons other than that provider from having requests made of them, unless the provider does not have the document or information, or has been required to provide it and has failed to do so. The amendments impose on the regulator statutory limitations that were imposed on the Housing Corporation’s information collection powers.
Amendment No. 182 will omit subsection (2), so that the regulator will be able to ask for the same type of information from profit-making registered providers as from non-profit providers. It will not be limited to information relating only to the social housing affairs or activities of a profit-making provider. That extension to the regulator’s powers is needed because we now propose that the regulator should be able to set standards for governance and financial viability for profit-making registered providers, and to exercise the moratorium powers in the case of insolvency. The regulator will, therefore, need the power to require the provision of a wider range of information from profit-making providers than was previously contemplated in order to exercise, and as a consequence of exercising, these powers.
Clause 105 is supplemental to clause 104. It has two main effects: to specify how clause 104 is limited in regard to legal professional privilege and bankers’ duty of confidentiality, and to specify penalties for those guilty of an offence under clause 104. As presently drafted, clause 105 could not require a banker to breach a duty of confidentiality owed to a person who is not a registered provider, or a subsidiary or associate of a registered provider. However, it could require the banker to breach its duty of confidentiality owed to registered provider A, for example, if the regulator were seeking information about registered provider B, even though registered provider A was not an associate or subsidiary of registered provider B. The Council of Mortgage Lenders expressed concerns about that possibility. Amendments Nos. 183 to 186 respond to their concerns.
The amendments qualify clause 105 and ensure that, if the regulator requires a banker to provide a document or information of a banker under clause 104, the banker can only be required to breach a duty of confidentiality owed to the registered provider to whom the requested document or information relates, or to a subsidiary or an associate of that provider, but to no other person. The effect of the amendments is to protect the confidentiality of other registered providers, their subsidiaries and associates—apart from the registered provider to which the requested document or information relates, and the provider’s subsidiaries and associates.
The amendments thus protect registered providers and other persons from unnecessary requests, and require the regulator to request documents and information from the relevant registered provider first—unless the regulator thinks that the provider does not have it—before asking anyone else. They also protect duties of confidentiality owed to people other than those to whom the request for information relates.
Amendment No. 187 relates to the offences that carry over from the Housing Act 1996 of failing to comply with the requirement for information or documents, under clause 104, or of altering, suppressing or destroying a document to which a requirement relates. The amendments will ensure that such proceedings may be brought only with the consent of the regulator or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Those provisions are necessary to prevent fraud or other misconduct from thwarting the regulator’s reasonable requirements for information.
The amendment ensures that, if an exceptional prosecution must be brought under clause 104, it is brought with the consent of those with an interest in the case and not anyone else with powers to prosecute. It will ensure proper consideration of the matter by someone with specific sector knowledge, such as the regulator, or with the authority and duty to consider the public interest, such as the DPP, before a prosecution can take place. It provides a further limitation on a power to prosecute, which it is hoped will not need to be used, but which is an important backstop to ensure that the regulator can obtain the information that it needs to do its job. I hope that hon. Members will except the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 181, in clause 104, page 42, line 29, at end insert—
‘(1A) A requirement may be imposed on a person other than the body to which the document or information relates only if—
(a) the body has been required to provide the document or information but has failed to do so, or
(b) the regulator thinks that the body is unable to provide it.’.
No. 182, in clause 104, page 42, line 30, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 104, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105

Section 104: supplemental

Amendments made: No. 183, in clause 105, page 43, line 12, leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘the’.
No. 184, in clause 105, page 43, line 12, after ‘provider’ insert
‘to whose affairs or activities the documents or information relates’.
No. 185, in clause 105, page 43, line 13, leave out second ‘a’ and insert ‘the’.
No. 186, in clause 105, page 43, line 14, leave out ‘a’ and insert ‘the’.
No. 187, in clause 105, page 43, line 23, at end insert—
‘( ) Proceedings for an offence under section 104(5) or (6) may be brought only by or with the consent of—
(a) the regulator, or
(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions.’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106

Disclosure

Iain Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in clause 106, page 43, line 30, at end insert—
‘( ) The regulator may disclose information to a person acting on its behalf for a purpose connected with the regulator’s functions.’.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 189.

Iain Wright: Under clause 106(1),
“A public authority may disclose information to the regulator for a purpose connected with the regulator’s functions”.
A public authority is defined in subsection (6) as
“a person having functions of a public nature (whether or not in the United Kingdom).”
Subsection (2) allows the regulator to disclose information to a public authority for a purpose connected with its own functions or those of the public authority. That is not a new power. The Housing Corporation has the power to disclose information under section 33 of the 1996 Act. For example, the regulator might need to share information with the Homes and Communities Agency, if the regulator discovers that the provider has not been using the HCA grant in the way intended, or has concerns about its long-term financial viability such that HCA investment could be jeopardised.
The regulator might need to pass on information to the police, if it becomes aware of, for example, fraud committed against the provider by an employee. Furthermore, it might need to disclose information to other regulators, such as the Charity Commission, where the registered provider is also a registered charity. Sharing such information with other regulators might help to reduce the administrative burden imposed on providers that are regulated by more than one body, and to avoid the need for both regulators to ask the body for the same, or very similar information.
Although clause 106(2) gives the regulator the power to share information with other public bodies, it might also need to disclose information to people other than public bodies. The regulator might want to appoint consultants and other agents in connection with its functions, such as specialist accountants—I like the sound of that one—or auditors to carry out an extraordinary order under clause 186, or housing consultants to assist in an inspection under clause 181. Such persons acting on behalf of the regulator would need to be able to see information that the regulator has in order to carry out the tasks entrusted to them by the regulator. Amendment No. 188 will allow that to happen.
We recognise that information sharing by public bodies, such as the regulator, is a sensitive issue. Clause 106(3) allows either the regulator or another public authority when disclosing information to impose requirements preventing further disclosure. The subsequent disclosure of information in contravention of such a restriction is an offence. At present, clause 106(5) provides that the maximum penalty on conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000. That is the same as the penalty provided for in section 33(5) of the Housing Act 1996.
Amendment No. 189 means that the regulator will not be able to disclose information if doing so would breach a statutory prohibition on disclosure imposed in other legislation. Similarly, it would prevent other public authorities from disclosing information to the regulator if doing so would breach a statutory prohibition.
Other legislation may state that disclosure of such information is prohibited except where allowed by other enactments. The words in brackets in amendment No. 189 mean that the regulator or public authorities could disclose information under clause 106 if other legislation states that disclosure is possible if allowed or required by another enactment. Clause 106 would be such another enactment, permitting disclosure in such a case. The intention is to clarify the powers of the regulator and public authorities while maintaining appropriate limits.
The amendments will allow a sensible onward disclosure when it is necessary for the regulator to carry out his functions, but enable the regulator to put further restrictions on subsequent disclosure. They will enable flexibility of arrangements while preserving the confidentiality of information that has been provided. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 189, in clause 106, page 43, line 31, at end insert—
‘( ) The power to disclose information under this section is subject to any express restriction on disclosure imposed by another enactment (ignoring any restriction which allows disclosure if authorised by an enactment).’.—[Mr. Wright.]

Clause 106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 107 and 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: Just before we adjourn, I shall mention that we have considered Tuesday. If we do sit on Tuesday evening, it will be from 8 o’clock until 10 o’clock. That is still a matter for the usual channels, but it is what I am banking on at the moment.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Liz Blackman.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Five o’clock till Tuesday 29 January at half-past Ten o’clock.